ML20140D390

Determination of 2-Dimensional Pressure Distribution on Byron/Braidwood D4 SG Tube Support Plate During Mslb

ML20140D390
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	03/12/1997
From:	John Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20140D342	List: ML20140D339 ML20140D390
References
PSA-B-97-05, PSA-B-97-5, NUDOCS 9706100369
Download: ML20140D390 (142)

Text

. . _ . . . -. - - - ..

PSA B-97-05 l

A Determination of the 2-Dimensional Pressure Distribution on the Byron /Braidwood D4 SG Tube Support Plate During a MSLB 1 Document Number PSA-B-97-05 l

l l

l 1

Joseph S. Miller Nuclear ruel Services Deputment Downers Grove, Illinois l

l l

l l

Prepared by:

Date: b i l

k Reviewed by: A  ! -

Date: ~3 // 97 I Approved by: , rti , w Date: I 97

'~

(Date Issued) 1 9706100369 970603 iii PDR ADOCK 05000454 P PDR l

l l

l

PSA B-97-05 Abstract The punose of this calculation is to perform and document an assessment of the 2-dimensional pressure distribution on the Byron /Braidwood's Westinghouse D4 steam generator P tube support plate (TSP). Calculations performed using RELAPS (Ref. I ) prosided structural loading on the steam generator tube support plates during limiting transient conditions. The Main steam line break (MSLB) event from hot zero power was determined to i yield the highest difTerential pressures across the TSP. These pressure load calculations were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) for their review. During this resiew the NRC issued a request for additional information (RAI) w hich requested that an evaluation be performed to determine the effect of multi-dimensional pressurc distribution on the steam generator's P TSP.

An evaluation was performed using the I-D Bernoulli integral equation. The equation was applied at four different radial locations from the center of the steam gercrator to the outside edge of the tube bundle above the P TSP. A normalized factor was deternuned which approximated the pressure variation in the radial direction. The factor varied from .87 at the center of the tube bundle to 1.08 at the outside edge of the tube bundle.

l 1

)

i i

. _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . .__.m_.. . _ _ _ . . . .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _.._ _ ._ ._ _ _

l PSA-B-97-05  :

i Table of Contents t

I-

1. Introduction.. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .... . .I

2. Methodology /Model Description and Assumptions.. . . .2 2.1 Description of the Problem . . . . . ..... . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .2 2.2 Initial Conditions and Geometry.. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .2  !

2.3 Discussion of Acoustic Phenomena.. . . . .. .. . . . . , . . .3  !

2.4 Deteimination of Steam Space Pressure Response... . . ... . ... . .3 2.5 Determination of Bulk Fluid Motion.... .... ... .. .. . .. . . . . ... ...... . . .4 2.6 Determination of the Multi-Dimensional Pressure Distribution.. . . . . ... ..... ... . . . .. 5 ,

3. Calculations.... . . . . .... . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . . .... .. .9 i 3.1 Steam Region Depressurization Rate.. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . .9 i 3.2 Determination of Applied Pressure Gradient.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 9  !

3.3 Bulk Fluid Motion Calculations.. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .9 ,

4. Results .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .

5. Conclusions / Discussion.. .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6. References.. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 13 Appendix A - Mathcad Cases.. . .. . . . . . . .. . .14 i

l f

i l

l I

r L

t I

i I

I I

l l

l '

V

PSA-B-97-05 List of Tabics Table i Key Geometric parameters of D4 Steam Generator.. . .3 Table 2 Summary of Results.. .1I l

1 l

l l

l l

i i

si

l l PS A-B-97-05 List of Figures i

Figure i Diagram of Steam Generator Flow Paths.. .6 Figure 2 Diagram of the D4 Steam Generator and Plan View of Steam Generator Tubes.. '

Figure 3 Control Volume Diagram . .8 l l

l I

i l

l l

l l

\

l t

1 I

- - . , . - . - _ . . - _ - . --..--. .-.-.._- ....-.- -.._~..-.-- -.- .-. -

i PSA.B-97-05 i

i r  !

! 1. Introduction  :

! During a main steam line break event, the rapid blowdown of the faulted steam generater can lead to significant

• I loads on the tube support plates (TSP). Transient thermal hydraulic calculations were p rformed (Ref.1) using j RELAPSM3, for the Byron 1/Braidwood i Model D4 steam generators. These calculations provided transient i i pressure loads which wcre used by Westinghouse for structural calculations. The results of the thermal hydraulic . 1 i

loads and resultant structural evale1 tion were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NRC) for their

approval. l l l i A request for additional information (RAI) was received from the NRC on January 30,1997. The RAI stated that j following a postulated main steam line break (MSLB), the pressure drop will be determmed by the position l 1

dependent flow distribution across the steam generator (SG) TSP. Because of the difference in resistance between  :

fluid flows parallel and perpendicular to the SG tube bundles above the P TSP, a multi-dimensional flow pattern

! exists. The NRC requested that Commonwealth Edison essess the effect of the rnufti-dimensional flow pattern on

~ ]

t the position dependent pressure drop across the P TSP.

t t ,

) This report provides the method used to determine the 2-dimensional pressure distributico above the P TSP in the i j Westinghouse D4 steam generator. The results were provided as a function of the SG radius and normalized to an ]

average value of 1.0.

l j

e l

f 2

i i

1

PSA B-97-05 l

l l 2. Metliodology/Model Description and Assumptions i

2.1 Description of the Problem The limiting case, for determining the maximum pressure loads on the TSPs, has been presiously deternuned to be a break of the steam line directly outside the steam generator nozzle, with the generator at initial condidons of hot zero power and nonnal water level. The D4 steam generator is shown in Figures I and 2. What is desired is the difTerential pressure vs. time that exists at the upper support plate as a function of the SG radius. To calculate tids multi-dimensional differential pressure, one must detennine the dpamics of the fluid motion in the tube region j following the initiation of the break.

I The original analysis (Ref,1), lumped the volume around the U-tubes above the P TSP into one volume. The maximrun pressure differential across the TSP was calculated by RELAPS to be 2.44 psi (Ref.1.0). The loss coefficient across the U-tubes were calculated based on the Zukanskus correlation as presented in Reference 1.0.

Tids was lumped into the loss coefficient at the separator inlet The modeling of the tube bundle region was l performed in accordance with the latest guidance available in the April-June 1995 RELAP5 Newsletter. This calculation provided a uniform pressure distribution across the P TSP. Due to the steam generator tube bend above l the P TSP. a 3-Dimensional flove pattern will be created during the main steam line break (MSLB). This 3-l Dimensional flow pattern will cause a non-uniform pressure distn'bution across the upper TSP.

An approach to calculate the 2-Dimensional pressure distribution was developed. The method presented in Reference 2.0 was used to develop a 2-Dimensional pressure distribution across the P TSP as a function of the SG radius. Four 1-Dimensional flow streams were modeled from the N support plate to the separator. Figure 3 shows ,

the basic concept. In the initial part of the MSLB, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the TSP is single phase liquid. After the MSLB begins, the liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces. One can solve the  ;

flow rate and pressure drop across the TSP, by drawing a control volume around the fluid regions, and sohing the Bemoulli integral equation w hich accounts for inertial and viscous effects.

Calculation of the dynamic response of the tube region fluid requires that a number of related issues be addressed.

These include characterization for the transient pressure response of the steam space, acoustic effects both prior to i and following initiation of fluid motion, and detennination of the differential pressure operating r,n the bulk fluid  !

in the tube region. These conditions were praiously discussed in Reference 2 and are summanzed below.

2.2 Initial Conditions and Geometry The vendor calculations indicate that the limiting case occurs at hot zero power conditions with water levels at l normal values. The water level is at 487* ,just below the swirl vanes in the separators. The temperature of the

water and steam are uniform at $57 F, and saturation conditions are assumed. Key geometric parameters hase been derived based on RELAP5 and TRANFLO (Refs. I and 7) input descriptions and are presented in the table below

1 l l

l 2

PSA-B-97-05 Tabic I Key Geometric parameters of D4 Sicarn Cencrator

Parameter Value

! Initial Steam Space Volume 2556.52 fl3 Steam space Path length 27.745 ft Liquid Region Path Length 40.583 fl Tube Bundle flow area 56.45 fl2 l TSP flow area 17 ft2 1

Entrance area of separators 22.01 ft2 TSP loss coefficient 1.08 Separator Entrance loss coeff 13.7 Break Area (restricting Nozzle) 1.388 fl2 Diagrams of the D4 steam generator are shown in Figures I and 2.

1 2.3 Discussion of Acoustic Phenomena The break is assumed to occur over a time interval of I msec. Since this time interval is too short to assume i equilibrium conditions (about 1/100 second or greater), a decompression wave will travel through the steam

, generator at high speeds. (about 3000 fps in the liquid and 1000 fps in the steam. This will require approximately l 40 ndlliseconds. The result of the passage of this wave will be the generation of voids, requiring about 10

milliseconds to occur. Therefore, 50 milliseconds into the event, the initial decompression wave will have l

! traversed the generator and inidated voiding in the liquid regions. This is significant in that once the voiding

occurs, the acoustic velocity decreases dramatically. Reference 4 provides a value of 157.5 fps for the speed of a decompression wave in equilibrium saturated water. This speed then dictates the rate at which pressure differentials can develop between the decompressing steam space and the bottom of the fluid regions, since the l

pressure disturbance propagates at the acoustic speed. Therefore the maximum differential pressure operating on

! the fluid can in determined by estimating the rate of change of pressure in the steam space and employing the 4

acoustic propagation length of the fluid to determine the time and therefore pressure lag at the bottom of the steam generator.

2.4 Determination of Steam Space Pressure Response In the initial phases of the blowdown, the steam region pressure response can be readily characterized by treating

the steam as a perfect gas and employing formulas for adiabatic blowdown (isentropic expansion) o.-isothermal 4 blowdown of a pressure vessel (Reference 4). These in fact, give relatively good results in the period of time

initially after the break initiates prior to the decompression wase reaching the fluid surface. Once, the fluid surface becomes involved however, the flashing rate leads to significantly lower pressure decay than would be predicted by the simple perfect gas formulas. Therefore, alternate methods must be utilized to obtain the steam space pressure 4

response.

From Reference 2, the maximum differential pressure that could exist in the steam generator prior to motion of the fluid is AP = JP *(At, + At,)

dt where At i , At, = acoustic transport times for the liquid and vapor regions 3

PSA B-97-05 dP/dt = rate of pressure decay in the steam region This equation was used to determine the maximum differential pressure across the tube support plate.

2.5 Determination of Bulk Fluid Motion Once the pressure response of the steam space has been deterndned and a pressure differential across the fluid region defined. the bulk motion of the fluid can be characterized. For the purposes of this calculation, the pressure drop determined above will be applied across a control volume extending from the second highest support plate l

(N TSP) to the entrance to the separators. Figure 3 provides a diagram of the control volume. Using the one-dimensional Bernoulli integral approach (References 2 and 5), the following equation can be written:

T d( 1 I K rAi r di AP + pg(zi - 2p 2 r )+ M'(A,A 2

i- +- [ A ) = 0 i

2 where (L/A)r = Total path inertia (length / area)

A1= Mass flow rate AP= differential pressure zi,z2 = clevations at beginning and en( of control volume l p = fluid density Ai,A 2= entrance and exit areas I(K/A') = friction factor / area representing viscous pressure loss tenns at obstructions This equation can then be directly integrated to achieve a solution of the mass flow rate of fluid vs. time. The solution has the form:

1 e 2ck{)r -1' M(t) = -

C :c.fp)r + 1

.e

where 1 1 1 K C= 2 2 PAP _ A; A,'+[A*_

This equation can then be solved for the bulk fluid motion. The pressure drop at the upper TSP can then be readily determined. It should be noted that this fornmlation ignores the effects of wall friction for conservatism.

4

PS A-B-97-05 l

l l 2.6 Determination of the Multi-Dimensional Pressure Distribution i '

The multi-dimensional pressure distribution that occurs above the top support plate is due to the 3 Dimensional geometry of the U-tube bundle as it bends to return flow into the lower part of the steam generator. The diagram shown in Figure 2 depicts the tube above the top support plate and , chows the tube bundle distribution. As the decompression wave propagates into the U-tube, flow and fluid acceleration pressure losses will allow the pressure, above the P TSP, to remain higher at the center of the TSP and lower at the outside edge of the TSP. Since the pressure below the P TSP will be uniformly distributed due to the symmetry of the tube geometry below the top i

support plate, the corresponding P TSP pressure differential will be lower at the center and higher at the outside edge.

This multi dimensional effect can be simulated by applying one-dimensional Bernoulli integral equation presented in Section 2.5 at four different radial locations on the P TSP. No cross flow between the parallel flows was l aaumed. This assumption maximized the pressure differentials across the P TSP, because cross flow between the parallel flow paths would allow the pressure distribution to be more uniform.

The calculations presented in Appendix A were performed using MATHCAD. The equations were taken from References I and 2. The calculation approach, to determine the multi-dimensional effects of the P TSP pressure differential, was developed in three steps. The first step was to use the Zukauskas correlation from page 390 of Reference 5.0 and calculate the tube bundle loss coefficient for four different distances from the center of the tube bundle. These distances are r = 0.0 feet, r = 1.4 feet, r = 2.833 feet, and r = 4.25 feet where r is the radius of the tube bundle From this calculation, an estimated pressure drop across the tube bundle was calculated assuming a flow of I1,000 lbm/sec. The position dependent tube bundle pressure drop was converted into an equivalent K l value that was added to the separator inlet.

l l The second step, used the position dependent K value, calculated in step one, to calculate a relative load for the TSP usmg the Bernoulli integral equation fonnulation presented in Section 2.5. The third step was to use the four load factors calculated for each of the radial positions above the P TSP (i.e., r = 0.0, r = 1.4 feet, r = 2.85 feet and r

( = 4.25 feet) and normalize these values to the expected average pressure above the P TSP. These nonnalized values can be applied to the calculated transient differential pressure across the P TSP (Ref.1.0) to determine the radial variation of the transient differential pressure across the P TSP.

l t

i 4

v' 5

i

PSA-B-97-05 figure 2 Diagram of D4 Steam Cencrat:r and Plan View of Steam Generator Tubes ass 7 <

f --

p W ==

l i 113m a

t 9 I/ ~l u h 2 l 3 as 164 so 1--+ ,

,, g l

\

l 4 co L- -

78.75 1- h 3

r

=

3 811c0 A 12s m a

I i ,. i ) o l 3.06 -

52s,se . c. -

I l ;I l

.-ima g l o. - q l

& s /

r'12 b l l

', i a 35, 3 i i i

131-----+ .ase25 i 81 8 i

l

• 6i 2s 25 e* ,t ,,

heria1MEfs{@27.72f itoo o

-> 31 86M an _ - / , ,

,e ao J Model D-4

! --.  ? --

! / .

~'

-- L .h .

/

n

-= .

_g-dh

,rt --

_;.=

';n

f- ~

p'he- e:--

7.

_ a j$i- .

e-- -- -

- - - y

.s lp- _

y ,

= 5 '~~~

.- - u

-a m- l l :i _ =

J j

,Waw- _esty -

$ -sM-l . .

.. . m

, j -~ #- - ,

. . . . x--- ..

-- .; ~

_-- -- y --  ;  ;;: . ..

$((046 99 119L' Of 9t'89 9Leff M jf"El. - .. .n - .:w.- }

l I

l l

I

i PSA-B-97-05 l

l Figure 3 Control Volume Diagram l

Separator inlet A - 22.01 K - 13.7 l

81 l A - 56.45 l ~%

Control Volume / Path i

DP applied P TSP A- 17 K = 1.08 I l

I ,

l i

l A - 56.45 l

l

~ ~ ~

" N TSP A = 17 K - 1.08 d

1 8

1 PSA-B-97-05

3. Calculations 3.1 Stearn Region Depressurization Rate The steam region depressurization rate of 124 psi /sec was determined (Ref. 2) using the method presented in the Appendix of Reference 2. By way of comparison, the TRANFLO code (Refs. 7 and 8) produces a depressurization rate of approximately 132 psi /sec during the first 500 milliseconds of the event.

I 3.2 Determination of Applied Pressure Gradient Based the differential pressure rate established above, the maximum pressure that could be applied across the fluid region can then be determined. Using a conservative depressurization rate of 145 psi /sec, the pressure rate occuning just after the initial acoustic effects, the differential pressure acting on the fluid becomes:

DP = (145 psi /sec) x ((40.583 ft / (157.5 ft/sec) + (27.75 ft /1476.4 ft/sec ))

DP = 40 psi This value was used with the 1-Dimensional Bernoulli integral equation to determine the relative pressure loads across the TSP at various radial distances from the center of the plate. These analyses were performed using MATHCAD and are presented in Appendix A. l l

3.3 2-Dimensional Muid Motion Calculations The volume around the P TSP was divided into four control volume flow streams. These parallel flow streams were ,

i located at the center of the steam generator (r = 0.0),1.4 feet from the center of the steam generator ( r = 1.4 feet),

2.83 feet from the center of the steam generator ( r = 2.83 feet), and 4.25 feet from the center of the steam generator ( r = 4.25 feet). These control volume flow streams represent vertical flow streams, starting at the center of the tube sheet and proceeding to the outside edge of the tube sheet. Each of the control volume flow I

streams represents a vertical flow path from the N support plate to the separator. The only difference in these parallel flow streams are the tube bundle loss coefficient The control volume flow stream starting at the center of the tube sheet has the largest total loss coefficient and the control volume flow stream at the outside of the tube bundle has the smallest total loss coefficient. By calculating the pressure differential across the TSP for each of these flow streams, a 2-Dimensional representation of the pressure drop acioss the TSP can be established as a function of r (i.e., the radius of the steam generator). Using the approach discussed in section 2.6, and the maximum velocity of the fluid at the tube support plate, the pressure load on the support plate can be calculated.

I Detailed transient simulations of the MSLB using RELAP5 showed that the decompression wave is approximately 40 psi (Ref.1). This was reproduced in Section 3.2 using a depressurization rate of 145 psi /sec. The density of the fluid used was based on the RELAPS calculation at the time of maximum pressure differential across the support plate. Using the I-Dimensional Bernoulli integral equation, a pressure drop across the control volume of 40 psi at a density of 45.5 lb/ft', and the maximum velocity of the fluid across the TSP, the corresponding pressure difTerential was calculated for the four control volume flow streams. The calculation for each of these control volume flow streams provided a TSP load as a function of distance from the center of the bundle. These loads were I normalized to produce the relative pressure differential across the TSP, The results of the calculation are presented in Table 2.

i l

9 l

PSA-B-97-05 4.0 Results The results of the calculation are shown in Appendix A. A sununary of the results are shown in Table 2. The results were normalized to equate to the time dependent average pressure differentials as calculated in the RELAP5 analyses presented in Reference 1.0. If the equation presented in Table 2 is integrated from r = 0.0 to r = 5.5 feet, the resultant would be equal to 1.0, i c., the average value if normalized to 1.0.

l l

\

i 10

. - _ - - - . _ . - . - . _ . . . _ _ . - - - . . ~ . - - - - . . ._._. - . . . . - _ .

PSA B-97-05 ,

1 Table 2 Summary of Results At the 1.4 feet from 2.83 feet from 4.25 feet from center of the center of the center of the center of l

the bumile the bundle the bundle the bundle Kw= 4.216 Kw= 2.827 Kw= 1.406 Kw= 0.0 Load = 1.36 Load = 1.46 Load = 1.57 Load = 1.7 DPso,. = .87 DPs. = .93 DPso,. = 1.0 DPuo, = 1.08 The nor'malized TSP pressure differential with respect to the radius of the steam generator, ( r ), is given as.

TSP DPso,.( r ) = .87 + .213x(r/4.25) for r = 0.0 to r = 4.25 feet TSP DPuo,.( r ) = 1.08 for r > 4.25 feet l

For example, using the maximum TSP pressure differential of 2.44 psi, the maximum position dependent I pressure differentials for the P TSP, when consid: ring the pressure distribution effects of the tube bundle, were

]

calculated at the center of the bundle as 2.1 psi ard at the outside the tube bundle as 2.63 psi. This pressure l

differential variation represents a .51 psi change (i.e., a 24 % pressure differential variation) from the center of  ;

the bundle to the outside of the bundle due to the multi-dimensional influence of the U-tube above the P TSP.

l l

l t

i j i

1I

-y-- --, - - -

r

PSA-B-97-05 i

4. Conclusions / Discussion A methodology to determine the peak loads on the upper tube support plate that would result from a design basis ,

MSLB event was used to determine the 2-dimensional pressure distribution across the top support plate of the Westinghouse steam generator D4. This methodology is based solely on first principles and has minor reliance on c mputer codes. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2. These position dependent factors should be used to adjust the P TSP transient pressure differential to account for the multi-dimensional effects of the U-tube above the P TSP.

The above approach, for determining the multi-dimensional pressure effects of the tube bundle, wasjudged to be conservative for the following reasons:

I 1.0 No cross flow was assumed between the parallel flow streams. This has the effect of maximizing the pressure differences between the flow streams. Cross flow between the flow streams would cause a more uniform pressure distribution across the TSP.

2.0 No pressure drops or fluid inertial terms other than the separator entrance and the N and P support plates -

were included. In reality, other significant pressure losses and inertia terms exist, and sene to limit the transient velocity across the TSP more than was calculated here. '

3.0 An infinite sink of fluid was assumed. This would have the effect maximizing the velocity and pressure drop across the support plate. In reality, the flow up the bundle would not exceed the mass release out the main steam nozzle.

i l

l l

l l

l l

I i

l 12

l PSA-B 97-05

5. References

1) Kesin B. Ramsden " Calculation of Byron 1/Braidwood 1 D4 Steam Generator Tube Suppon Plate Loads with RELAP5M3", Comed Document Number PSA-B-95-17, Resision 0, (October 11,1995).

2) Kesin B. Ramsden, "An independent Verification of Byron /Braidwood D4 SG Tube Support Plate Differential Pressures During MSLB", Comed Report PSA-B-95-15. Resision 0. (September 1,1995)

3) N. Todreas and M. Kazimi, " Nuclear Systems ! - Thennal Hydraulic Fundamentals". (1990).

4) " Introduction to Unsteady Thermofluid Mechanics", F. J. Moody, (1990).

5) " Nuclear Systems !" N. E. Todreas and M. S. Kazimi, (1990).

6) "The Thermal Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nucicar Reactor" R. T. Lahey Jr. and F. J. Moody, (1977).

1 7 "Braidwood Unit 1 Technical Support For Cycle 5 Steam Generator Interim Plugging Criteria", WCAP-  ;

14046, (May 1994) I l

8) " Technical Support for Alternate Plugging Criteria with Tube Expansion at TSP Intersections for Braidwood 1 and Byron 1 Model D4 Steam Generators", WCAP 14273,(1995).

I i

l l

i l

l i

i

)

1 i 13 l

--.m .

--4 .- d

i l

PSA B-97-05 l l \

l Appendix A - Mathcad Cases l l

1 l

l 1

l l

l i

l l

14 l

l

unsw -

poriion of the tubes. This will be handled by calculating a K value to be added to the separator inlet loss coefficient, using a correlation by Zukauskas obtained from p390 of

• Nuclear Systems I" !

Kazimi/Todreas. The values for crossflow length and area are taken from the TRANFLO output previously provided. This calculation is being performed to determine loss coefficient for SG model D4 tube bundle for a distance of 4.25 feet. (i.e., t = 0.0) g : 32.2 p :45.5 Density of fluid p = 19.7104 g viscosity of sat liq at 1000 psi l D :.1234 hydraulic dia from TRANFLO INPUT O: Mass flux from TRANFLO Output at .57 sec 36.39 S .0885 S = 1.416 Tube lattice aspect pitch over dia I.15 i 12!

l Re:GD Re = 5.8810 5 Reynolds number needed to obtain f p

f = 0 24 f-factor from figure Z=1 square lattice, no Z correction number of rows of tubes, estimate by crossflowjunction length / pitch g , 4.25

.0885 DP :

"' .Z DP at estimated flow 2 pl44 g DP = 2.496 At a flow of 11000 lb/sec the expected dp is about 2.5 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 2.84 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the separatorinlet.

• I A yp : 22.01 DP A sep 2.g44 g.) p i

W2 l

K = 4 6 I This , 'ed to the losses associated with the junction between 102 and 135-5.

l l

introductisn A simple physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based on the Bernoulliintegral equation, as described in Kazimi's ' Nuclear Systems l' text. In the incal part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces.

Detailed transient simulations with RELAP and TRANFLO show that the decompression is approximately 40 psi. By drawing a control volume around the upper support plate, one can solve the Bernoulliintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and viscous effects. This is a reasonable approximation to the initial behavior of the fluid, since only minor void generation occurs initially. The longer term behavior is dominated by two phase effects and increased pressure drop in the upper regions of the steam generator, but these are not operable in the initial phase of the fluid acceleration. This calculation is being performed to

< determine the TSP load at the center of the U-tube bundle,i.e., r = 0.0 feet .

Geometricalinput l A = 6.4 A2 Flow Area below TSP j 2

^ o : 22.0 0 A Flow Area into Separator dp g =40 32.2144- Differential Pressure based on RELAP 2

3 Aup : 17 A Area of TSP Kup = 1.08 2 Loss Coefficient of TSPs (P and N) 2 Asep :22.01 A Sep K plus Bundle K ( K tube = 4.216)

K sep 18.06 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respective areas I : 8.1666 A + 3.5733 + ft 141567 A Ao Ai A sep p = 45.5$ Fluid Density A'

l

! Gravity Effects would reduce the applied dp by:

A I379 i P P32.2-lb A

grav where 379/12 is the initial height of water i

dp : dp ; - P grav

Kazimiderivea a solution with a constant Ca2 of the form indicated below:

I;1 1 I i .+ X up e K sepi Co ,2pdP Aj 2 1

2 l A o; A up A l q

l.

l l

l t = 0 sec,.02 sec. 2 see i

The time dependent solution is of the form 1

4

' (2 c ap ,

e -I m(t) : I -

i C 2 c.ap ,

j I e 3 ' +1

, i The results are shown graphically below i l

d 2*lo , y y ,

i l

l u lo" - -

i g) I'lo' - -

l Sooo -

i

, I I i 1 }j C 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t

i 1

I

g gg.

23 I I I i i

l 20 ni t)_ 15 -

l ,

! V n i0 ,' - -

o

$ ~~'

l

' s e

f f l t 0 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 t.T, Load Factor The applied load on the support plate is proportional to the square of the velocity. In practice, a factor of two was applied. The relative merit of this choice is demonstrated by taking the square of the ratio of the velocity determined above divided by the code calculated maximum value:

l i m(.5 sec) R max = V, o :S R h=

PA q

[

l fR h R load

• R go g = 1.361 i

R 1

( maxi l

Therefore, the maximum load calculated by alternate methods is less than the value used in l

the structural evaluation.

I i

i l

{

r i

9

nu utwee mus2WsWWw&wtww!wsww portion of the tubes. This will be handled by calculating a K value to be added to the separator inlet loss coefficient, using a correlation by Zukauskas obtained from p390 of

• Nuclear Systems l' Kazimi/Todreas. The values for crossflow length and area are taken from tha TRANFLO output previously provided. This calculation is being performed to determine loss coefficient for SG model D4 tube bundle for a distance of 2.85 feet. (i.e., r = 1.4) g : 32.2 p : 45.5 Density of fluid p : 19.710# g viscosity of sat liq at 1000 psi D :.1234 hydraulic dia from TRANFLO INPUT G=I Mass flux from TRANFLO Output at .57 sec 36.39 S :.0885 S = 1.416 Tube lattice aspect pitch over dia f .75 1

I i 12 l

Re :G D s Reynolds number needed to obtain f p

Re = 5.8810 f = 0.24 f-factor from figure Z :I square lattice, no Z correction number of rows of tubes, estimate by crossflowJunction length / pitch N : 2.85

.u885 DP = Z DP at estimated flow 2-p !44 g DP = 1.674 At a flow of 11000 lb/sec the expected dp is about 2.5 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 2.84 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the separator inlet.

A 3,p : 22.01 DP- A sep 2144 g 2 p W2 K = 2.827 This is added to the losses associated with the junction between 102 and 135-5.

Introductian I

A simple physical model to describe th3 fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based

! on the Bernoulli integral equation, as describsd in Kazimi's " Nuclear Systems l' text. In the initial part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces.

Detailed transient simulations with REl.AP and TRANFLO show that the decompression is l

! approximately 40 psi. By drawing a control volume around the upper support plate, one can solve l the Bernoulliintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and viscous effects. This is a reasonable approximation to the initial behavior of the fluid, since only minor void generation occurs initially. The longer term behavior is dominated by two phase effects and increased pressure drop in the upper regions of the steam generator, but these are not I

operable in the initial phase of the fluid acceleration. This calculation is being performed to l determine the TSP load 2.85 feet from the outside edge of the U-tube bundle,i.e., r = 1.4 feet.

Geometricalinput A = 56.45 ft' Flow Area below TSP l

2

^ o : 22.0 b A Flow Area into Separator dp g :40 32.2144- 2 Differential Pressure based on RELAP l 3

2 Agp :17.ft Area of TSP i

K up :1.08 2 Loss Coefficient of TSPs (P and N) i 1

2 A 3,p : 22.01 R 1

Sep K plus Bundle K ( K tube = 2.827)

.g m :16.687 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respective areas l  ! = 8.1666+A 3.5733+ ft 14.1567 ft Ao A Ag p :45.5I Fluid Density ft' Gravity Effects would reduce the applied dp by:

ft 1379 i Pg,y : p 32.2 lb- ft where 379/12 is the initial height of water dp : dp i - Ppay 4

1

Kazimi derives a solution with a constant C"2 of the form indicated below: j C0- +

• 2pdP A2i A o/

2 A tsp 2

A q,

2 j

l l

C=h l l

t = 0 sec,.02.sec. 2 sec l

l The time dependent solution is of the form i

e(2 C dp 3

-I

,\

m(t) = I -

C 2 c.ap ,

e +1 I

The results are shown graphically below 2*10' , , , ,

1 4 -

1.5*10 -

4 - -

g)l'10 5000 -

I I I I 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 l \

l l

1

Ylite trefocrty a8 the EuDe suppord p@c is snown $iidow, vypicagMEGGS resuks are ar6pTDTieo)

]

25 l , , , , l

! l 20 - - l l

l'. '.

Wit 15 -

l i, -

pay /', e

• l

~

'l .

j V

a, io

/ '

5  ; -

l i

l o'0 I i 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 t , T, 1

l Load Factor The applied load on the support plate is proportional to the square of the velocity, in practice, a factor of tuo was applied. The relative merit of this choice is demonstrated by taking the square of the ratio of the velocity determined above divided by the code calculated maximum value:

4 n .: 5 I' } ~

R h= Rmax V.

PA q l

j

/R hY R load l iRmaxi R load =1.456 l Therefore, the maximum load calculated by alternate methods is less than the value used in

the structural evaluation.

l l

l I

i i

l

i lMe clossWoW 04sl portion of the tubes. This will be handled by calculating a K value to be added to the separator ,

int:t loss coefficient, using a correlation by Zukauskas obtained from p390 of " Nuclear Systems r )

Kazimi/Todreas. The values for crossflow length and area are taken from the TRANFLO output previously provided. This calculation is being performed to determine loss coefficient for GG model l 1

D4 tube bundle for a distance of 1.417 feet. (i.e., r = 2.833) g = 32.2 p :45.5 Density of fluid p 19.710 g viscosity of sat liq at 1000 psi D :.1234 hydraulic dia from TRANFLO INPUT G .= I Mass flux from TRANFLO Output at .57 sec 36.39 S :.0885 S = 1.416 Tube lattice aspect pitch over dia f.75 i (12.

Re:G s Reynolds number needed to obtain f Re = 5.88 lo l

f = 0.24 f-factor from figure Z=1 square lattice, no Z correction number of rows of tubes, estimate by crossflow junction length / pitch g ,1.417 l .0885

" Z DP at estimated flow DP =

2 p l44 g DP = 0.832 t

At a flow of 11000 lb/see the expected dp is about 2.5 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 2.84 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the separator inlet.

A yp = 22.01 DP A gp 2,y44 g y.

2

W K = 1.406 This is added to the losses associated with the junction between 102 and 135-5.

l

Introductinn A simpla physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based I on ths Bernoulliintegral equation, as described in Kazimi's

• Nuclear Systems l* text. In the initial part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase I I

liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces.

Detailed transient simulations with RELAP and TRANFLO show that the decompression is approximately 40 psi. By drawing a control volume around the upper support plate, one can solve the Bernoultiintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and l l viscous effects. This is a reasonable approximation to the initial behavior of the fluid, since only i minor void generation occurs initially. The longer term behavior is dominated by two phase effects and increased pressure drop in the upper regions of the steam generator, but these are not ,

operable in the initial phase of the fluid acceleration. This calculation is being performed to l determine the TSP load 1.417 feet from the outside edge of the U-tube bundle,i.e., r = 2.833 feet .

l Geometricallnput 2

Ai = 56.45 A Flow Area below TSP O

^o '

Flow Area into Separator dp i = 40 32.2144- 2 Differential Pressure based on RELAP g ,

2 Area of TSP A9 = 17 A l K g,p = 1.08 2 Loss Coefficient of TSPs (P and N) l 2

A 3,p = 22.01 A Sep K plus Bundle K ( K tube = 1.406)

K 3,p = 15.266 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respective areas l

I ~= 8.1666 + A 3.5733 + A 14.1567 A

! Ao Aj A 3,p p :45.5 S Fluid Density l A' Gravity Effects would reduce the applied dp by:

A g P grav = p 32.2 lb- where 379/12 is the initial height of water f 379 )i dp : dp i - P grav 1

Kazimi derives a solution with a constant Ca2 of the form indicated below:

Ii K tsp K sep C , I + v o 2pdP ,,A- f' 12 - 2 A tsp 2

A sep 2

i i Ao/

l "4

l t = 0 sec,.02 sec. 2 sec The time dependent solution is of the form 1 2 0

l

! [2 C dp.,

I e\ ' ' -l m(t) = -

C 2 c d, ,.

3 e +1 The results are shown graphically below r

l 4

2 i0 , , , ,

l 4 -

i.5 10 -

l 4 - -

y riO S000 -

O 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t

4 i

I l

..-~ - - -. . - - . - .

p N I I l l I

m - -

mft) [*,

i I -

VA4 ,

l 's v,

~~

,.l 10 ,

t l

f i f I 0

l 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t , T, l Load Factor l The applied load on the support plate is proportional to the square of the velocity. In

practice, a factor of two was applied. The relative merit of this choice is demonstrated by taking the square of the ratio of the velocity determined above divided by the code calculated maximum value

I I n :S R h=' R max = V, jPA tsp f'R h Y l

R load l R R load = 1.569 i max /

i I

Therefore, the maximum load ca!culated by alternate methods is less than the value used in l l the structural evaluation.

l 1

I

( '

l l

i i

i 1

, introduction i

l l A simple physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the uppsr TSP can be developed based on ths Bernoulliint:gral equation, as described in Kazimi's "Nuc!sar Systems l* text. In the initial part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces.

Detailed transient simulations with RELAP and TRANFLO show that the decompression is approximately 40 psi. By drawing a control volume around the upper support plate, one can solve the Bernoulliintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and viscous effects. This is a reasonable approximation to the initial behavior of the fluid, since only minor void generation occurs initially. The longer term behavior is dominated by two phase effects and increased pressure drop in the upper regions of the steam generator, but these are not operable in the initial phase of the fluid acceleration. This calculation is being performed to determine the TSP load at the outside edge of the U-tube bundle,i.e., r = 4.25 feet Geometricallnput Ai = 56AS A' Flodrea belm TSP 2

^ o = 22.00 A Flow Area into Separator i

l Ib l dp g :40-32.2144- 2 Differential Pressure based on REl.AP A sec l

2 f Area of TSP A4 :17 A l

Loss Coefficient of TSPs (P and N)

K 4 = 1.08 2 2

1 A 3,p = 22.01 A Sep K plus Bundle K (K tube = 0.0)

K 3,p : 13.86 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respective areas l 1

I .: 8.1666+A 3.5733 + A 14.1567. A A, A; A 3,p i

p :45.5I Fluid Density 3

A l Gravity Effects would reduce the applied dp by:

A /379 i Pgrav :p32.2 2yIJ j where 379.'12 is the initial height of water dp : dp 3 - P grav 4

i

Kasimi derives a soluton wrth a constant C"2 of the form indicated below:

1 C0 - - -

l 2 p dp

,i l A .2 4o/ 2l A tsp2 A sep 2

l C=f t = 0 sec,.02 sec. 2 sec l

The time dependent solution is of the form l

4

! 2 c ap

• -I m(t) =1.

C 2 c ap , .

8 e +l The results are shown graphically below 4

2*l0 , ,

1.5'10" - ,

$) l'10 5000 -

I I I I 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 I

t l

. . . - . _ _The velocrty at the tube support plate is shown below, typical RELAP results are also plotted 30 i i i I l

- ~

20 ni t) [*,

PAbp e 's y ,,,' .,

~~ '

10 /

t l

l

' ' I I 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 l

i.r, l Load Factor The applied load on the support plate is proportional to the square of the velocity. In practice, a factor of two was applied. The relative merit of this choice is demonstrated by l taking the square of the ratio of the velocity determined above divided by the code calculated maximum value:

l m(.5 sec) n =5 R h= R mu = V. i i

PA tsp l l

l I IR h R load R

max)

R load " I 7

! Therefore, the maximum load calculated by alternate methods is less than the value used in

the structural evaluation.

l l

I l

l f

l i

i

j incompressible, viscous fluid flow. This evaluation is very conservative for a number of rsason2:

1. A constant pressure source was assumed. This would in fact decrease with tims as the pressure drops in the upper areas of the SG increased with carryover effects.

2. An infinite source,(and sink) of fluid was assumed. (in reality the long term steady state flow up the bundle would not exceed the mass release out the nozzle.)

3. No pressure drops or fluid inertial terms other than the separator entrance and TSPs were included. In reality, significant other pressure drops and inertial terms exist, and serve to limit .

the transient velocity more than calculated here. l

4. Pressure fosses were based on single phase values, although in reality, higher losses for the same flows would exist in two phase conditions. This would have the dual effect of increasing the load on the plate while reducing the velocity.

5. Wall friction losses were ignored for conservatism, but are expected to be of minor importance in any event.

This evaluation demonstrates that there is indeed an upper bound on the flow, and consequently pressure load, that could be experienced by the tube support plate in a MSi_B event. The detailed RELAP and TRANFLO results, which include compressible, two phase, viscous effects compare favorably with this result. The margin of a factor of two is supported by these results as a conservative overprediction of the loads that could be experienced by e TSP during the MSLB event.

1 .

l l

l l

l l

l l

l i

a 4

1 1

)

An Independent Verification of Byron /Braidwood D4 SG Tube Support Plate Differential Pressures during MSLB  !

PSA-B-95-15

Revision 0 Commonwealth Edison Nuclear Fuel Sennces Department Domwrs Grove, Illinois i

I

)

Prepared by: i ,d a _.

Date: > [ [9s' Reviewed by: e  !- Date: 9!/ [9f Approved by: ---

f s Date: 9!/!T5' (ddte is' sued) 9 M M-64 avce-

PGA-B-95-15 Revision 0 Statement of Disclaimer l

l This document was prepared by the Nuclear Fuel Services Department for use internal j to the Commonwealth Edison Company, it is being made available to others upon the l 1 l express understanding that neither Commonwealth Edison Company nor any of its l

officers, directors, agents, or employees makes any warranty or representation or l assumes any obligation, responsibility or liability with respect to the contents of this l document or its accuracy or completeness.

1 I

i  !

l 1 l

i I

l s

i i

l I

il

PSA-B-9515 Revision 0 Release of Information Statement This document is furnished in confidence solely for the purpose or purposes stated. No other use, direct or indirect, of the document or the information it contains is authorized.

j The recipient shall not publish or otherwise disclose this document or information therein to others without prior written consent of the Commonwealth Edison Company, and shall return the document at the request of the Commonwealth Edison Company.

)

I lii

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 Abstract The purpose of this calculation is to perform and document an independent l assessment of the Westinghouse calculations generated to provide structuralloadings l on the steam generator tube support plates during limiting transient conditions. The

Main steam line break (MSLB) event from hot zero power was determined by the i vendor to yield the highest differential pressures across the support plates. The vendor l utilized the TRANFLO code for the initial work, and validated their results using the MULTIFLEX computer code. This assessment develops and utilizes methods based primarily on first principles physics to determine bounding differential pressures seen at the most highly loaded TSP. This provides a realistic assessment of the margin inherent in the vendor methods.

l l

iv l

l

l PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 Table of Contents

1. Introd uction. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .. . 1

2. Methodology /Model Description and Assumptions............ .... ..... . . . . . . . . . .2 2.1 Description of the Problem . . .. .. .. . .... . ... . .... .. ......................2 l

2.2 Time Sequence............ ... . .. ... .. . .............................................2 l 2.3 Initial Conditions and Geometry . ... . ............ ............. .... ....... . . . ........4 1

2.4 Discussion of Acoustic Phenomena . .................. . ... ... ................... .. . ... . 4 l

2.5 Determination of Steam Space Pressure Response .... ..... ........................ . 5 2.6 Determination of Bulk Fluid Motion.. . .. ... ............. ... .. . ........ . .. . .. ...... 6

3. C alculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............11 3.1 Steam Region Depressurization Rate ... ..... . .... ..... ...... . .. .. .. ..... . .....11 3.2 Determination of Applied Pressure Gradient. .... .... .. .. .............11 3.3 Bulk Fluid Motion Calculations.. ..... .. . . . . . . . . .. ....... ... 11 3.3.1 Single Phase Case -Small Control Volume... .... ... . . . . . . . .11 3.3.2 Single Phase Case - Extended Control Volume . ...............12 3.3.3 Two Phase Case - Extended Control Volume. ... .. ... . .. .... .. .12

( 4. Results . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .. ........... ..................................16

5. Conclusions / Discussion .. .... ..... .... .. ..... .......... . ... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

6. References..... . ..... . . . . . . . .. . . ........ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Appendix A - Mathcad Cases. ... . ... . . . .. .. ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... 19 I

I l

i i

I l V

p ,

i PSA B-95-15 Revision 0 List of Tables 1

Table 1 Key Geometric parameters of D4 Steam Generator...... ..... . .................. ........ 4 Table 2 S u mma ry of Re sults . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . .. 16 I

i i

4 1

l l

l l

l e

l k

i i

vi

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 List of Figures Figure 1 Diagram of D4 Steam Generator... .. ........ .. . . . ........... .. . ... .. . .. 8 Figure 2 Time Sequence for MSLB . . . ........ . . . . ... ..... ...........................9 Figure 3 Control Volume Diagram .. .. .. . ......... . .. .......... .. . ......... .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . 10 l Figure 4 Velocity at P-TSP Single Phase Case .... . . .............. .... ....................13 l Figure 5 Pressure Drop at P TSP Single Phase Case . ..... .. .... ...... . . ......... ...... ..13 Figure 6 Fluid velocity at P TSP - Extended CV case ........................... .... ..... ....... ..14

! Figure 7 Pressure Drop at P-TSP Extended CV Case ........ . ... . ..... .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 8 Velocity at P TSP -Extended CV two phase case ... ....... .. . ... ... .. ............15 Figure 9 Pressure Drop at P TSP - Extended CV two phase case.. .. . . ... ...... . ...... 15 i

l I

r i

l I

vil 1

1 1 - -

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 l

1. Introduction During a main steam line break event, the rapid blowdown of the faulted steam generator can lead to significant loads on the tube support plates. Westinghouse has performed transient thermal hydraulic calculations on the Byron 1/Braidwood 1 Model

D4 steam generators in support of structural calculations regarding the extent of tube support plate deformation. Independent assessment with other computer codes has been performed, although some questions remain, particularly with respect to the margin of safety and the allowances for calculational uncertainties. Therefore, a method of characterizing the loeds on the upper support plates based on first principles l physics, independent of computer codes, was developed. This report documents the methods created for this purpose and details the results obtained.

l l

1 i

i 1

PSA-B-9515 Revision 0

2. Methodology /Model Description and Assumptions 2.1 Description of the Problem The limiting case has been previously determined to be a break of the steam line l

l directly outside the steam generator nozzle, with the generator at initial conditions of hot zero power and normal water level. The D4 steam generator is shown in Figure 1.

l What is desired is the differential pressure vs. time that exists at the upper support

! plate during this event. To calculate this differential pressure, one must determine the dynamics of the fluid motion in the tube region following the initiation of the break.

I Calculation of the dynamic response of the tube region fluid requires that a number of I related issues be addressed. These include characterization of the break flow and transient pressure response of the steam space, acoustic effects both prior to and following initiation of fluid moticn, and determination of the differential pressure operating on the bulk fluid in the tube region.

2.2 Time Sequence l

An understanding of the time sequence of events following initiation of the break is important to understanding the relationships between the key physical phenomena.

Figure 2 provides a depiction of the key events and their relative temporal location for this event. As can be seen, this event can be thought of as consisting of three major regions, each dominated by different physical effects.

The initial phase is the acoustic region, characterized by the establishment of critical flow at the nozzle and initiation of depressurization of the steam regions of the generator, but prior to the initiation of bulk fluid motion. A key occurrence in this region is that a decompression wave traverses the generator, initially at high speed through the contiguous single phase regions. The effect of this decompression wave is to initiate voiding in the fluid, drastically reducing the acoustic velocity, which then determines the pressure response times in the subsequent phases.

The next phase is the bulk fluid motion phase. Given the reduced acoustic velocity of the two phase mixture and the continuing decompression of the steam regions, a differential pressure across the liquid region will occur, causing bulk motion of the fluid.

This motion is dominated by momentum effects and pressure losses at the grids and other structures. The fluid will accelerate to maximum velocities early in this phase and then decelerate as viscous effects involve more of the upper structures of the steam l generator. Additionally, the decompression rate decreases as time goes on, due to I pressure reduction as well as increasing liquid content in the break effluent.

l 2

i

. _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . .

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 The last phase is the long term behavior. This phase can be thought of as a quasi-steady state condition dominated by mass balance effects. The fluid remaining in the tube regions will flow at a rate comparable to the break flow rate. The velocities at this point are low and decrease with time as the blowdown progresses to completion.

l l

l l

l i

e i

3

-, =.

PSA-B-95-15 l Revision 0 1

2.3 Initial Conditions and Geometry The vendor calculations indicate that the limiting case occurs at hot zero power conditions with water levels at normal values. The water level is at 487" , just below the swirl vanes in the separators. The temperature of the water and steam are uniform at 557 F, and saturation conditions are assumed. Key geometric parameters have been derived based on TRANFLO input descriptions and are presented in the table below:

i l

l Table 1 Key Geometric parameters of D4 Steam Generator Parameter Value Initial Steam Space Volume 2556.52 ft3 Steam space Path Length 27.745 ft Liquid Region Path Length 40.583 ft Tube Bundle flow area 56.45 ft2 TSP flow area. . 17 ft2 Entrance area of separators 22.01 ft2 TSP loss coefficient 1.08 Separator Entrance loss coeff 13.9 Break Area (restricting Nozzle) 1.388 ft2 2.4 Discussion of Acoustic Phenomena The break is assumed to occur over a time interval of 1 msec. Since this time interval is too short to assume equilibrium conditions (about 1/100 second or greater), a l

decompression wave will travel through the steam generator at high speeds. (about 3500 fps in the liquid and 1500 fps in the steam. This will require approximately 40 milliseconds. The result of the passage of this wave will be the generation of voids, requiring about 10 milliseconds to occur. Therefore 50 milliseconds into the event, the initial decompression wave will have traversed the generator and initiated voiding in the liquid regions. This is significant in that once the voiding occurs, the acoustic velocity decreases dramatically. Reference 1 provides a value of 157.5 fps for the speed of a decompression wave in equilibrium saturated water. This speed then dictates the rate at which pressure differentials can develop between the decompressing steam space and the bottom of the fluid regions, since the pressure disturbance propagates at the acoustic speed. Therefore the maximum differential pressure operating on the fluid can be determined by estimating the rate of change of pressure in the steam space and ^

i employing the acoustic propagation length of the fluid to determine the time and therefore pressure lag at the bottom of the steam generator.

l l

4

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 2.5 Determination of Steam Spage Pressure Responsa in the initial phases of the blowdown, the steam region pressure response can be readily characterized by treating the steam as a perfect gas and employing formulas for adiabatic blowdown (isentropic expansion) or isothermal blowdown of a pressure vessel (Reference 1). These in fact, give relatively good results in the period of time initially after the break initiates prior to the decompression wave reaching the fluid surface. Once, the fluid surface becomes involved however, the flashing rate leads to significantly lower pressure decay than would be predicted by the simple isentropic formulas. Therefore, alternate methods must be utilized to obtain the steam space pressure response.

A review of methods for determining the vessel dome pressure response indicates that this is generally accomplished via detailed numerical methods. Some textbooks provide plots of vessel pressure ratios, calculated using detailed methods, with dimensional time scales to provide an approximate method to assess the pressure response. Use of this type of approach for this problem yields depressurization rates of approximately 124 psi /sec. The figure with tangent lines drawn from Reference 3 used to establish this depressurization rate is enclosed in the Appendix. The generalized time axis value was based on the break area (1.388 ft2) divided by the initial liquid i mass (145,256 lbm). The initial depressurization ratio estimated above,124 psi /sec, compares favorably to the value 132 psi /sec calculated by the TRANFLO code for the first .57 seconds of the event.

Therefore the maximum dynamic differential pressure that could exist in the steam generator prior to motion of the fluid is:

AP = dP *( At, + At,) l dt where l l

Ati, ot, = acoustic transport times for the liquid and vapor regions l

l dP/dt = rate of pressure decay in the steam region 4

1 1

5 i

l PSA B-95-15 Revision 0 I

i i

2.6 Determination of Bulk Fluid Motion l f

Once the pressure response of the steam space has been determined and a pressure 1 differential across the fluid region defined, the bulk motion of the fluid can be characterized. For the purposes of this calculation, the pressure drop determined )

l above will be applied across a control volume extending from the second highest support plate (N TSP) to the entrance to the separators. Figure 3 provides a diagram of the control volume. Using the one-dimensional Bernoulli integral approach (Reference 2), the following equation can be written:

'L1 dV + AP +pg(: M' 1 1 K

-f )+-2p( A --A,+ h)A= 0 2 i 2

<A>r dt 2 I

where (UA)r = Total path inertia (length / area)

M= Mass flow rate AP= differential pressure zi,z2 = elevations at beginning and end of control volume l

p = fluid density i

Ai,A2 = entrance and exit areas I(K/A )2 = friction factor / area representing viscous pressure loss terms at obstructions This equation can then be directly integrated to achieve a solution of the mass flow rate of fluid vs. time. The solution has the form:

i , %Q, _ }~

2 i

M(t) = C

_e Q, + l_

where

I ' I C' - A,' + Ah'_

2 PAP _ A,'

6

J. l

?

- PSA-B-95-15 i

• Revision 0 i

This equation can then be solved for the bulk fluid motion. The pressure drop at the upper TSP can then be readily determined. It should be noted that this formulation j ignores the effects of wall friction for conservatism.

1 i

i 4

4 i

i i

i i

i i

4 l.

t a

i.

J l

4 7 {

1

PSA B-95-15 {

1 Revision 0

)

Figure 1 Diagram of D4 Steam Generator

e '

i A

n a 3 i,.

i l ll: n

• o 9 I f*' ,

,,. , , , ** I _

I I b-m, 4 ,,

ii.. I .

g , ,,, ,

, , u . .

g o ,

l 127.6 g

jp g

[ ,

t rY o ?s l

~

l '{ f[1 2Sf

<r t ma l

m l

56.6 F l, m as

:: 41 I t='

l '";

( .e g.I

,1  ;;

ab IJ Ii

=> , , I .j ola , i..

.... a l3 .

$"_0+

,r 1 ;] g _

L i < w t__

aa

=-

8

?

I 3

eo Start of Blowdown c Initiot Acoustic Vove a w

d y Acoustic Vove Length  !

i

$ in e .

i

.O -

C  ?

e -

3  !

O t

-4 m Butk Liquid Motion leagins .

3 $ k g Peak Velocity Reoched $

c i

5- a in i

I  !

a ,

C g Velocity decreases os break quality drops  ;

LA o ,

G 8 m -

O 3

m Pressure continues to decoy l 8o t

i l

g Quasi-SS ochieved ,

8 .

E $

8 End of Blowdown @ P  !

o < as

+ W 6 Y

a G  ;

i t

i

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = ___________--__ ______-__ ___ ._._-__ _____. _ _ _ _ . - ____ _ -

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 Figure 3 Control Volume Diagram l

Separator inlet j A=22 01 K=13 7

)

Erd __i l l

A=56.45 N

Control Volume / Path l

l P TSP A=17 K=1.08 DP applied l

1 i

l A=56.45 l

J N TSP A=17 K=1.08 l

l l

10 l

- .. . _ - _ - - . _ . -. . -. . - - - . - . . . . - = - - - - -

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0

3. Calculations 3.1 Steam Region Depressurization Rate l

l The steam region depressurization rate of 124 psi /see was determined using the

! method presented in Section 2.5. By way of comparison, the TRANFLO code produces l a depressurization rate of approximately 132 psi /sec during the first 500 milliseconds of l the event.

l 3.2 Determination of Applied Pressure Gradient l

Given the differential pressure rate calculated above, the maximum pressure that could be applied across the fluid region can then be determined. Using a value of 130 psi /sec, the pressure rate occu: ring just after the initial acoustic effects, the differential pressure acting on the fluid becomes:

1 DP = 124 psi / sec x(40.583ft /157.5ft / sec+ 27.75ft /1476.4ft / sec) l DP = 34.28 psi 3.3 Bulk Fluid Motion Calculations 3.3.1 Single Phase Case -Small Control Volume l Using the formulation discussed in section 2.6, the maximum velocity of the fluid at the tube support plate and then the pressure loss (load) on the support plate can be calculated. The velocity at the P TSP is shown in Figure 4. The pressure drop that would result from this velocity of single phase fluid is shown in Figure 5. The pressure drop is calculated using the relationship:

KpV*

2x144xg l where K= local loss coefficient p= density Ibm /sec

- V= velocity ft/sec 11

PSA-B 95-15 Revision 0 3.3.2 Single Phase Case - Extended Control Volume This case was performed to provide a more realistic estimate of the maximum velocity of the fluid. This case extends the control volume to the bottom of the steam generator j and accounts for the additional losses in the lower tube support plates. The areas ,

were assumed to be continuous to the bottom, and the same loss coefficient was j utilized for all support plates. This is conservative given that higher loss coefficients I and slightly reduced areas exist in the preheater and boiler sections in the lower )

portions of the generator. The velocity at the P TSP is shown in Figure 6. The l pressure drop that would result is shown in Figure 7.

l 3.3.3 Two Phase Case - Extended Control Volume This case was performed to provide an indication of the effects of two phase fluid flow in the tube regions. Since the initial decompression wave will cause void formation, some increase in fluid friction can be expected. The extended control volume model was modified to include a HEM multiplier on the local loss factors used. This approach is conshtent with a ' liquid only" based calculation per Reference 2, page 487. A two l phase friction multiplier was selected assuming 1% mass quality, which bounds the l amount of voids calculated by TRANFLO in the initial phase of the event. The velocity I

at the P TSP is shown in Figure 8. The pressure drop that would result is shown in Figure 9.

l l

1 i

i i 12

- _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , ..__-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _

PSA-B-95-15 1

Revision 0 Velocity l ft/sec

' 30 20 e

i 10 2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

- P TSP Velocity Time (seconds)

Figure 4 Velocity at P-TSP Single Phase Case Pressure Drop psi d

I f -

I dptsp(O2 I

1 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 12 1

- Pressure Drop at P TSP Time (seconds)

Figure 5 Pressure Drop at P TSP Single Phase Case 13

. _ _ . . . ~ - . . _ _ . - .. __ __ - ,- . - _. . .. ..

PSA B-95-15 Revision 0 l

l Velocity I

ft/sec  ;

25 1

' ~ ~ ~

20 '

- l l

l l 15 1

v(t) 10 l /

o6 0.s 1 1.2 o 0.2 c.4 1 s

- P TSP Velocity

! Time (seconds)

Figure 6 Fluid velocity at P TSP - Extended CV case l

l Pressure i

Drop psi 3

f dp up(')

I 1 1 0 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 t

- Pressure Drop at P TSP Time (seconds)

Figure 7 Pressure Drop at P-TSP Extended CV Case i 14 4

l l PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0 l

l l

l i Velocity ft/sec 20

\ .7 15 <

l v(t) 10 l

l l

5 l

l 0.4 0.6 0.8 I I.2 0 0.2

- P TSP Velocity Time (seconds)

Figure 8 Velocity at P TSP -Extended CV two phase case 1

l l

Pressure Drop psi

' 3 r~

l 2

f

( dp up(8) 3 l

O Il O 0.2 0.4 06 0.8 1

! t

- Pressure Drop at P TSP Time (seconds)

Figure 9 Pressure Drop at P TSP - Extended CV two phase case 15 t

l

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0

4. Results The results obtained from these calculations are presented in Table 2. The base case l HZPINWL TRANFLO results are provided for comparison. As can be seen, the limiting CV case produces very conservative results. This is expected since the entire pressure drop occurring in the steam generator is being applied to a small section .of the upper tube bundle. This case is believed to be limiting, and demonstrates the '

conservatism inherent in the factor of two applied to the base TRANFLO resulte used to l generate structural loads. The extended CV cases provide a more physically realistic treatment of the total pressure drops in the generator, and support the results obtained with TRANFLO. The two phase case provides an estimate of the effects that would be seen if HEM multipliers are applied to the pressure drop determination. The increased l pressure drop of the two phase flow is nearly compensated by a decrease in predicted l velocity, with the net result being a minor variation in pressure drop.

Case Depressurization Peak Velocity at Max. Pressure drop at P- .

l

! rate P-TSP TSP psl/sec ft/sec psi l '

l Base- small 124 26.37 3.68 CV Extended CV 124 20.56 2.24 1$

Extended CV 124 18.81 2.23 2$

TRANFLO 132 =17 1.6 (3.2 used in structural evaluation)

Table 2 Summary of Results l

l l

l l

l h

i

! 16 l

PSA-B 95-15 Revision 0

5. Conclusions / Discussion N

A methodology to determine the peak loads on the upper tube support plate that would result from a design basis MSLB event has been developed and exercised. This methodology is based solely on first principles and has no reliance on computer codes.

The results obtained compare favorably with those obtained via computer simulation,

) and provide a basis to assess the margin of safety utilized in the analyses of TSP J J

loads. It can be concluded that the factor of two used in the structural assessment results in a physically bounding pressure drop, even allowing for typical uncertainties in two phase pressure drop prediction. I i

l 1

i l

1 J

1 4

l l

4 2

a b

1 17

PSA-B-95-15 Revision 0

6. References

1) " Introduction to Unsteady Thermofluid Mechanics", F. J. Moody,1990.

2) " Nuclear Systems I", N. E. Todreas and M. S. Kazimi,1990.

3) "The Thermal Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor", R. T. Lahey Jr. and F. J. Moody,1977.

i l

i 18

PSA-B-95-15 l

Revision 0 Appendix A - Mathcad Cases l

l i

l l

l l

l i

19 l

R STE AM/W ATER SYTTEM. INITI ALLY A . OUTLET ARE A (f t 2, FILLED WITH SA e URATED WATER AT 1000 pone 8

=

M, SYSTEM INITIAL LIOUlO MASS (Ib gl

=

t REAL TIME lese)

CRITICAL FLOW THROUGH " PERFECT" NO2ZLE 1000 1 I -

g SATURATED LIQUID ESCAPE

% l 4  !  !

s/

g  :

SATURATED. HOMOGENEOUS MtXTURE ESCAPE , j 800 * ' ' '

'g 3  : I e g' p LIOut0" LEVEL"GONE AT = (134.4310~8 5

I a

1. \s-

\

s

\

\

4 I

M.

Mi I

l

$ \

l N 8 \ f' I

s ** \ l s .

U

l

/ SATURATED VAPOR ESCAPE

. \\ /

\

s

\

N%

% ===i  %= ===  % ,_

0 0 i (200110-6 (400110-0 (600110-6 (8001104 (1000110-6

'7(,.]

<=^ eM C^6 GENERAllZED TIME Ag ggg7 3g,,c3

( J ,peesro' t9g en -t

% ...b. M, m,i N

Fig. 9-17a. Pressure transients-blowdowns from 1000-psia reference system. "

^

! A Simplified Approach to Assessing TSP Loads intrcducti2n i A simple physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based on the Bernoulliintegral equation, as described in Kazimi's Nuclear Systems I" text. In the initial .

part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression aid acceleration forces.

Blowdown calculations have been performed to estimate the driving pressure. By drawing a control volume around the upper support plate, one can solve the Bernoulliintegral equation for th i flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and viscous effects. This is a reasonable ]

approximation to the initial behavior of the fluid, since only minor void generation occurs initially.

GeometricalInput 2

A j := 17 ft Flow Area of N TSP, entrance to control volume 2

A o= 22.01 f1 Flow area of Separator inlet, exit of controlvolume 2

Atube .= 56.45 ft Flow area of tube region Ib dp i := 34.28 32.2144- Differential Pressure (dynamic component) 2 ftsec i l

2 Atsp :: 17.ft Area of TSP K tsp := 1.08 2 Loss Coefficient of TSPs (P and N) 2 Asep := 22.01 ft K 3ep:=13.9 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respective areas 3 , 8.1666-ft 3.5733 ft 14.1567 ft

.Atube Atube A sep p.:45.SS Flmd Density ft' Neglect Gravity Effects, since applied load is I

only dynamic component 0

Pgrav ': p 32.2 lb- -((8.1666 + 3.5733) A) 2 sec lb i

dp:=dpi l

l l -

- _. - . . . . . . .,_-- . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ = - - . _ . - . _ . . . - . . - . . - . - . .

l G3naral Sclutisn Kazimi derives a solution with a constant Ca2 of the form indicated below:  !

1 I1- 1I . + tsp + K q K l I

C o .. 2 2 2 pdp

,(Ao

• A2aj .A tsp A sep C:=f t := 0.sec,.02 sec.1 sec The time dependent solution is of the form i

l i

1 e(2 c.ap_, -1  :

l m(t) :: - 2_c3.,

! C 3

e +1 The results are shown graphically below 4

2.S *l0 g i g g g

(-

4 ~

2'10 -

l 4 -

~

1.5*10 n(t) 4 -

~

1*10

$000 l

I l I i l 0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 l

b

I i

l Tha velocity et tha tube support plats is shown below t

s(t) := m(t)

PA q l Velocity ft/sec 30 f' l 20 v( t)

~

l 10 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1 1.2 1

- P TSP Velocity Time (seconds) dp 4(t) := 1.08 pstt)2 2 144-32.2 Pressure l Drop psi i

4 f

dp up[t) 2 l

l 0 l 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 I l.2 l

t

! - Pressure Drop at P TSP l

l Time (seconds)

A Simplifi d Approach to Assessing TSP Loads-Full Tube Bundle Caso intrsduction A simple physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based on the Bernoulliintegral equation, as described in Kazimrs " Nuclear Systems I" text. In the initial part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase liquid. Following f3 e break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces.

The depressurization rate of the steam region can be estimated with textbook blowdown methods and a driving pressure across the fluid region can be inferred. By drawing a control volume around the fluid regions, one can solve the Bernoulliintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, accounting for inertial and viscous effects.

In this case the same basic approach is followed, but with the control volume extended to the bottom of the tube region.

Geometricallnput A ; := 17 A' Flow Area of N TSP, entrance to control volume 2

Ao := 22.01. A Flow area of Separator inlet, exit of control volume 2

Atube = 56.45 A Flow area of tube region dp 3 := 34.28 32.2144- Differential Pressure Asee Atsp .: 17 A Area of TSP The actual awas are smaller and the losses larger in the lower regions. For simplicity, it will be consentatively assumed that the lower tube region can be modeled identk: ally to the upper regions. This will underpredict the losses and inertias in the lower region.

Ktsp := 1.08 E 1,oss Coefficient of all TSPs (P to A) 2 A ,p .= 22.01 A g gp ;; 33,9 The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths divided by the respectrve areas

, ,8.1666 ft 3.5733 ft 14.1567 ft 3.0 ft ,) 2.5 tt 3.5733 ft 2

A wp ^ tube A tube Atube Atube A tube p .:45 5 S Fluid Density ft' Gravity Effects are ignored since the elevation head is not added to the dynamic load:

Pgrav ~ 2 dp ::dp 3 - Pgrav

G:niral S:luti:n Krzimi d: rives a solution with a constant C^2 of the form indiccted below:

CO _ i f1 --

I)

+

K up + K g 2 2 2 2'Pdp Ao A;2j A gp Ag l

C:=h t := 0 sec,.02 sec.1 sec The time dependent solution is of the form l l

2 C-dp ,

e -1 m(t) := I -

C 2 C.ap.,

3 e +1 l

The results are shown graphically below 4

2'10 , g  ; y 3 f 4 -

1.5'10 -

m(t) l'10 4 -

5000 -

I ' ' ' '

0 0 0.2 04 0.6 08 1 1.2 l

i i

l

The v:locity ct the tube support plate is shown below v(t) .= "II)

PAtsp l

l Velocity  !

ft/sec 25 l 20 -

i 1

l 15

-W t) )

! 10 I 1

l  !

5 0 ,

0 0.2 44 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 j t j

- P TSP Velocity '

Time (seconds) dp tsp (1) ~* 1.08 pv(t)2 2 144 32.2 Pressure Drop psi 3

2

_ /t) dp e, 1

0 0 0.2 04 06 0.8 1 1.2 t

- Pressure Drop at P TSP Time (seconds) i r

l

A Simplified Approach to Assessing TSP Loads-Extended CV/2 phasa introduction l A simple physical model to describe the fluid behavior at the upper TSP can be developed based i on the Bernoulliintegral equation, as described in Kazimi's " Nuclear Systems l* text. In the initial part of the transient, the fluid in the tube area adjacent to the upper support plate is single phase l liquid. Following the break, this liquid is subjected to decompression and acceleration forces. l

The depressurization trae of the steam region can be estimated by textbook blowdown methods  !

l and a driving pressure across the fluid region can be inferred. By drawing a control volume around l

the fluid regions, one can solve the Bernoulliintegral equation for the flow rate of the fluid vs time, l accounting for inertial and viscous effects.

l l

In this case the same basic approach is followed, but with the control volume extended to the bottom of the tube region.

i Geoinetricallnput l

2 A ; := 17 A Flow Area of N TSP, entrance to control volume 2

A~o = 22.01 8 Flow area of Separator inlet, exit of control volume 2

Atube = 56.45 ft Flow area of tube region dp j ::34.28 32.2144 I-2 Differential Pressure ftsec Atsp := 17 A Area of TSP

$3q : 1.19 See attached table for HEM multiplier l

The actual areas are smaller and the losses larger in the lower regions. For simplicity,it will be conservatively assumed that the lower tube region can be modeled identically to the upper regions. This will underpredict the losses and inertias in the lower region.

Ktsp : 1.08 8 4,q Loss Coefficient of all TSPs (P to A) 2 Asep .:22.01 A g sep ; 33,9 4 q The inertia of the path can be determined by the path lengths dividtid by the respective areas j ._ 8.1666 A 3.5733 A 14.1567 ft 3.0 ft ,) 2.5ft 3.5733 ft 2

Atube Atube A sep ^ tube Atube Atube p .: 45.5 I Fluid Density it' Gravity Effects will be ignored since only the dynamic load is applied Pgrav 2

[

i i

dp :: dp y - Pgrav I

Ganir:1 S:lutinn Kazimi dsrives a solution with a constant C^2 of the form indicated below; f1 K Co ._ II tsp + K g

.- I +

2 pdP 2 2 2 2 A A ij A tsp A sep

, 'i o  !

+

C '= C 0 f t

l t ':0.sec,.02.sec.1 sec t

The time dependent solution is of the form ,

m(t) .= I e(H -1 ,

C 2 C dr. ,

e +1 The results are shown graphically below  !

4 1.5*10 -

i i i i i

I l'10 4 - -

I t in( )

i

, $000 i

t t

t i i t t 0

0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 I l.2

( >

t l

l

)

i 1

I Tha velocity at ths tubs support plate is shown b low v(t).= "(')

pAtsp Velocity it/sec 20 l r

15 i

g)l0 s

(

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 t

- P TSP Veksity Time (seconds) 1.08 pv(t)2 4 q dp tsp (t) =

2 144 32.2 Pressure Drop psi 3

r 2

dP upII) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 t

- Pressure Drop at P TSP Time (seconds) l I

l l CONVtCTIVE SOILING AND CONDEN5ATION Table 3.1 valuso of tiu two phase frictional muhlplier 8 dg for the hornogeneous model eless-water system

• =8 = 1+s 1+a g Pressers, bar(pele)

Slaam 1 01 H9 'M4 68 9 103 IM 172 207 221 2 J,ulity

• 17 * (14 7) (100) (500) (1900) (l$00) (2000) (2500) ,(2000) (3206) i 1 14 21 340 1 44 1 19 l 10 148 l 04 5 874 141 14 12 18 >l2 le I# l 28 1 16 1 06 l0 10 121 2 21 8 5 06 l 2 73 1 95 1M l 30 1 13 10 20 212 3 M7 78 4 27 2 81 2 08 140 1 23 14 30 292 8 S33 11 74 5 71 340 2 57 l 87 lM 14 l # M4 67 3 14 7 7 03 +M 3 04 '

l 30 2 14 148 14 43$ ID2 17 43 8M $4s 3 48 241 140 de le 300 92 4 35 14 9 30 3 76 3 91 247 1 71 14 70 M3 10&2 22 7 1470 6 44 6 33 80 2 39 l 82 14 623 113 7 25 1 11 11 7 08 4 74 3 14 143 14 to ett 127 27 $ 12 90 7 75 $ 11 131 244 14 100 738 137 4 278 IH4 8 32 5 32 3e 2 14 14

\ -

l Tshis 2.2 Values of the too phase friodonal moldplier (6 8 for the Martinelli-Nelson modelsteesNeelersysema Presswe, har(psis)

Steam 141 6 09 M4 88 9 103 138 WW

% by n (l+7) (100) ($00) 1 72 207 l 2212 (1000) (1300) (2000) (2$00) (2000) (3206) l 54 15 18 14 1 33 12 les ll 140 3 M ll 33 34 24 1 73 10 1 43 1 17 140 89 2B 84 54 34 248 1 78 140 140 30 130 M 162 84 31 3 23 2 19 l 31 140 30 243 B3 23 0 II4 68 444 242 148 140

1. 3M 113 29 2 144 84 4 82 34I 30 1 83 140 430 145 M9 174 59 3 39 3 38 147 l 00 de MS 174 #4 174 11 1 6M 1 70 2 10 140 70 $2$ 199 44 4 21 4 III 74$ 3 96 2 23 140 80 883 tie 48 4 22 9 12 8 7 70 4 13 2 35 140 90 720 210 48 4 22 3 134 7 95 4 20 2 38 140 100 525 iM M4 134 56 3 30 3 79 2 13 140 r

l

s

(

i 1

CONVECTIVE Bolt.ING AND CONDENSATION Quality % bywt. '

. ot Pressure 10 go Bar-(psia)- ion 10 s ,-a s </a 101' (I(7)'-

. 'oe>L s

-s y

j ,

]/Z(Q ~ "

\ ~

" . :q 1

/fM//

j,yjn -

st t (soo) , p f / / //// l ~

8,, a*:o%f Y / / /// /

k ios,'o$>,'s 138,(;idW),k)N f ///// / '

' //(( [

!M !!'#!N56 :3 / --

o -- 221' I(32o's)' ' ' [dVg .

0 001 0 01 O 01 1

~ Mass qualliy Fig. 2.6. Void fraction : as a function of quality and absolute pressu 88

l Calculation of Byron 1/ Braidwood 1 D4 Steam Generator Tube Support Plate Loads with RELAP5M3 l

l Document Number PSA-B-95-17 j Revision 0 l Kevin B. Ramsden 1

i l

l Nuclear Fuel Services Department Downers Grove, Ilknois i

{

Prepared by: [ d _. Date: /o /N/V Reviewed by: ~ _/[/ 1 -

Date: N/n/YT _

f Approved by: fwfVf fpyr/~, Date: to/a/ff

(

(Da'te issued) l l F1 5\u\ M A W ~1c,pp. j

PSA B-95-17 Revision 0 Statement of Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Nuclear Fuel Services Department for use internal to the Commonwealth Edison Company. It is being made available to others upon the express understanding that neither Commonwealth Edison Company nor any of its officers, directors, agents, or employees makes any warranty or representation or assumes any obligation, responsibility or liability with respect to the contents of this document or its accuracy or completeness, other than the originally stated purpose.

I l

l l

i l

1 l

l

. i I

l l ii

]

PSA B-9517 Revision 0 Abstract This report documents a series of calculations performed to develop differential pressure loading time histories for the principal tube support plates in the Model D4 steam generators under Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) conditions from Hot Zero Power. These loads when multiplied by on appropriate factor, are intended to form the input for detailed structural evaluations. This work is being performed in support of the 3 mv IPC submittal.

l l

i f

lii 4

PSA B 95-17 Revision 0 l

l Table of Contents 1 . I n t ro d u ct i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Methodology /Model Description and Assumptions... . .... ............ . ...................2 2.1 C o m p u t e r C od e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 RELAP5M3 Model of D4 Steam Generator . ..... . ... . . .. .... ......... ... .. ...2 2.3 InitiaI Conditions .. ..... . ... .... ... ... ..... .... ................................2 2.4 Break Mode!.. .. ............ . . ................. ... .... ... ..... . ......................3 2.5 Tube Support Plate Differential Pressure Calculation....... ...................3 2.6 Special Modeling Considerations........ ........... ....................................3 l 2.6.1 Non-equilibrium Models .......... ............. ......... ............................3 1 2.6.2 Tube Bundle Interface Drag Modeling .. .......... ......... ..................... 4 l 2.6.3 Crossflow Resistance Modeling. .... .. ...... . ..... ....... .. ............4 l 2.6.4 Vertical Stratification Modeling in the Dome Regions. . .. . ..... ...... 4

3. Calculations...... .......... .........................................................................6 3.1 B a s e C a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ... ........6 3.2 Sensitivity CaIculations.. . .. . ...................................................6 3.2.1 Separator Performance. . ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............6 3.2.2 TSP Loss Coefficient . .. . ..................................................6 3.2.3 Variation in Flow Limiting Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Performance.. 7 3.2.4 Nodalization Sensitivity..... .. ..... ... . ..............................7 i 3.2.5 Variation in initial Water Level.. .. . ... ...... .. ... ....... . .......... ...... 7

! 3.2.6 Time Step Size...... ... ...... ....... .. .......... ... . . ... ......................7

4. Re s ul ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ............................................9 4.1 B a s e C a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ....... ..................9 4.2 Results of Sensitivity Cases ... .. ... . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ......9 4.2.1 Separator Model Sensitivity. . . ....... ..... . ... .......................9 4.2.2 Effects of TSP Loss Coefficient .. .. . ... .. ... . . . ....... . 10 4.2.3 Variation in Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Uncertainty.... ..... . .... .. .10 4.2.4 Nodalization Sensitiv;ty.. . .. ... ... ..... . .......................11 4.2.5 Variation in Initial Water Level.. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.6 Effects of Time Step Size.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................12 4.3 Design Margin . ... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... .. .. . . . . . . . . 13

5. Conclusions / Discussion .. . ... .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........23

6. References... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1

l Appendix A - File Index.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ., . .... ............. .... ... .. ..... .......25 l Appendix B - Input Data Set Protection Form . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................27 l Appendix C - Checks of Frictional Losses and Inertial Terms.... . . . . ..................28 Appendix D Base Model Listing . .. . ...... ... . .... ... . .... . ......... ... . .. . . ..............29 iv

1 l

l l

PSAvB-95-17 Revision 0 1

l List of Tables l

Table 1 Results of Separator Parametric Sensitivity. . . .. ...... ....... . .................. . .. 10 Table 2 Sensitivity to TSP Loss Coefficient .............. ...... . . ....... ..... ............... .. ..... 10 Table 3 Effect of Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Uncertainty... .. . ...... .... . .... .. ...... . .....11 Table 4 Nodalization Sensitivity Study Results...... . .................... . . ................11

, Table 5 Effect of Initial Water Level ..... . ...................................................12 l Table 6 Effect of Time Step Size .. . .... .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 l

i l

l l  :

4 i

l l

l l

1 i

1 1

1 d

k I

V l

I l

PSA B-95-17 Revision 0 List of Figures  ;

i j Figure 1 RELAP5 Model Diagram. ..............................................................5 t Figure 2 Renodalization of Model without dp slabs............ .. . ......... ... .. .. ............. 8

! Figure 3 Base Case Dome Pressure Response.......... .. .......... .. . ......... ..... ... . .. ...14 Figure 4 Base Case Break Flow Rate ......... .... ... .... ...... .. ... . .. .. .... . .... .... ....15 Figure 5 Base Case Liquid Void Fraction at P TSP ........... .. . .. . . .................16 l Figure 6 Base Case Differential Pressure on P, N, M TSPs .. .............. ... . . .. ......17 Figure 7 Base Case Differential Pressure at F, J, L TSPs.. ... ....... ..... ... ............18 l

) l Figure 8 Base Case Differential Pressure at A, C TSPs .. . ..... . ....... .. .............. . .. 19 '

F.guro 9 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at F TSP ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........20 l Figure 10 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at TSP M . ... .... ... . . ........ ...... .............. 21

! Figure 11 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at TSP P., ...................................22 l

l J

l I

vi 1

l 1

PSA B 95-17 Revision 0

1. Introduction During a main steam line break event, the rapid blowdown of the faulted steam generator can lead to significant loads on the tube support plates. Transient thermal hydraulic calculations on the Byron 1/Braidwood 1 Model D4 steam generators have been performed in support of structural calculations regarding the extent of tube support plate deformation. The geometrical properties of the D4 generators are derived from previous thermal hydraulic analyses Fi erformed by Westinghouse. This information is applied in the RELAP5M3 computer code to obtain loads based on the i most current computer code available. In the course of this work, a problem was noted -

in the non-equilibrium modeling of RELAP5M3. Methods were developed to circumvent this problem and obtain conservative, appropriate loads. This report documents the models created for this purpose and details the results obtained.

l l

I i

1 of 29

_j

- - -. . =- .-_- . . - - - - . - - . _-

PSA B 9517 Revision 0 I

2. Methodology /Model Description and Assumptions l 2.1 Computer Code The RELAP5M3 Version 1.1 computer code as implemented on the Comed HP 735 workstation network was employed for this calculation. This code is installed in the l NFS test library. The sample problems supplied were run and reviewed to ensure l proper installation and operation of the code, in addition, the MB2 test was modeled l with this code using similar nodalizations to further assess the ability of the code and l modeling methods to properly predict the transient differential pressures on the tube l support plates during MSLB events.

This computer code has the ability to model full non-equilibrium conditions, and employs a six equation / two fluid model. The developmental assessment problems were reviewed to verify that the code has an appropriate basis for the performance of l this calculation. The GE "One-foot" and "Four-foot" blowdown tests are most '

representative of this problem, and demonstrate that the code will conservatively and appropriately model saturated steam blowdowns with level swell. In addition, this code has been extensively tested in LOCA type calculations, and has been used for licensing applications by vendors and utilities.

l l 2.2 RELAP5M3 Model of D4 Steam Generator l The model developed for use in this calculation is depicted in Figure 1. This model is based heavily on the TRANFLO input description provided by Westinghouse. The primary side of the model used a nodalization essentially identical to that used by Westinghouse. Key secondary side flowpaths have been checked to ensure that  !

appropriate values of inertia and pressure drop information are being consistently I applied, Calculations of fluid path inertia and loss coefficients of the principal flow paths for the TRANFLO model and the corresponding RELAP input are provided in Appendix C. As can be seen, the RELAP model uses consistent, and slightly conservative values. This model was developed using RELAP5M2 in a prior j l calculation (Reference 1) and was converted to RELAP5M3 for this application. '

i l

2.3 Initial Conditions Prior vendor calculations (Reference 2) indicate that the limiting case occurs at hot l zero power conditions with water levels at normal values. The water level is at 487" ,

just below the swirl vanes in the separators. The temperature of the water and steam are uniform at 557 F, and saturation conditions are assumed. The primary system is at i equilibrium conditions with the steam generator. The primary system is modeled with I

time dependent boundary conditions that specify the hot leg temperature to be constant at 557 F. It should be noted that setting initial conditions for the partially voided volumes raquired some effort, since RELAP requires specification of fluid quality, but 2 of 29 l

. - _ .- - --- .- --~ _---_--.- -- .- - - - . - -

PSAoB-95-17 Revision 0 th' e value needed is void fraction. Inspections of resultant void fractions, and total SG mass were helpful in adjusting the model to start at the correct liquid levels.

! This calculation concerns the HZP case, since this is the limiting condition with respect

to TSP pressure loads. This condition leads to high TSP loads as a result of the l acceleration of a nearly solid column of fluid past the TSPs early in the event. Full power conditions are less limiting since the tube bundle is heavily voided, with much less overall inventory in the SG. This leads to a more " cushioned" effect and lower resultant loads on the TSPs as indicated by prior vendor analysis.

l 2.4 Break Model The break is modeled using a motor valve component with an opening rate of 1 millisecond. The generator nozzle is specifically modeled to provide appropriate treatment of fluid inertia and flow limitation. The break is assumed to occur directly l outside the nozzle.

l 2.5 Tube Support Plate Differential Pressure Calculation l

The calculation of tube support plate differential pressures was accomplished by subdividing the tube sections of the steam generator to include thin (.2 ft) volumes on I either side of the support plates (A-P). The pressure difference between these l volumes was then calculated via a control variable to provide the time dependent differential pressure. This method was applied on all the support plates with the l exception of the preheater sections. With this approach, it is desirable to use the i smallest volum(s possible, since the control system calculation includes a conservative bias related to the elevation head. Since this approach leads to a I

combination of small nodes adjacent to significantly larger nodes, a sensitivity study (

was performed to demonstrate that the loads are not significantly affected by the choice )

l of nodalization.

l 2.6 Special Modeling Considerations 2.6.1 Non-equilibrium Models l During the course of this work, it was noted that using the full non-equilibrium model  !

selection led to the generation of non-physical spiking in the tube bundle region. An i investigation of this behavior found that the spiking could be traced to the interfacial heat transfer behavior, allowing excessive amounts of liquid superheat to exist in the bundle region and then instantly resolving the discrepancy. (Reference 3) To avoid the

! non-physical behavior, the volume control words in the tube bundle and lower I downcomer were set to e=1. This forces a high heat transfer coefficient to exist  ;

l between phases, and effectively precludes the instability. Full nonequilibrium behavior l

3 of 29 l

PSA B-9517 Revision 0 '

is modeled throughout the rest of the model. This approach was demonstrated to render more physical and appropriate response by performing comparison studies to the MB2 steam blowdown tests.

l l

2.6.2 Tube Bundle Interface Drag Modeling The modeling of the tube bundle region was performed in accordance with the latest guidance available in the April-June 1995 RELAPS Newsletter. The TSP areas are set to be equal to the flow area of the bundle, and the loss coefficients are adjusted to provide the equivalent K-value. This change allows for more appropriate application of the EPRI bundle interface drag correlations.

2.6.3 Crossflow Resistance Modeling l

A reviev; of the Westinghouse input / output for TRANFLO indicated that a crossflow resistance across the tube bundle was accounted for. An independent approach for calculating the crossflow resistance was developed based on the Zukauskus '

correlciion as presented in Reference 4. The results of this correlation were compared to Westinghouse at the .57 second output edit, and showed comparable pressure drops. The pressure drop information calculated in this way was then converted into l K-values to be added as crossflow corrections at selected junctions. This approach l was used for the upper tube region ( 135-5) , downcomer entrance (100), and preheater (133) areas.

2.6.4 Vertical Stratification Modeling in the Dome Regions l

Based on review of initial calculations, it was noted that the dome region volumes were deentraining fluid and preventing the two phase mixture from reaching the break. The vertical stratification models were switched off in the upper SG regions (103 and 104) in the final case. This has no effect on the load calculations, since the peak occurs well before any carryover effects are observed. This change was made to provide more appropriate long term mass / energy balance predictions in the model.

l 4 of 29 l

1 l PSA B 95-17 Revision 0 \

l l Figure 1 RELAP5 Model Diagram i

I l

l l

l 107 ]

[ 105-l 105-1 h l 124 i D

IU4 l l

103 -b 110 l

1 102 8 N

135-10 ,

l l

P-TSP 135-9 111 L'- i

35-8 35-7 l 135-6 l N-TSP 135-5 135-4

! l 135-3 M-TSP  :.35-2 l 112-1 J35-1 i 1 134 L-TSP 101-10 101-9 133-5 101-8 112-2 l J-TSP tog _7 133-4 l t

101-6 133-3 1 101-5 112-3 F-TSP 133-2 l

101-4 133-1 l

101-3 t 101-2 1l2~4 C-TSP 101-1 132 1 + t l 122 112-5 131 121 #

I A-TSP +

100 4 i

REIAP5M3 D4 Steam Generator Model 5 of 29 l

l

PSA.Bv95-17 Revision 0

3. Calculations 3.1 Base Case The base case performed is the full MSLB from Hot Zero Power Conditions. The water level is assumed to be at normal levels (487"). The time dependent differential pressures on the tube support plates, along with the tube sheet transient differential pressure, are the primary output of interest. In addition, the average density adjacent to the TSPs is generated for use in the structural analysis. The base model employs equilibrium models in the tube region and lower downcomer volumes (volume control word e=1), with full nonequilibrium selected elsewhere. The defauit separator 1 performance curves are applied.

3.2 Sensitivity Calculations Several additional cases were run to assess the sensitivity of the base case model to variance in input parameters.

3.2.1 Separator Performance l The first set of sensitivity runs looked at the RELAPS separator modeling of carryover /carryunder fractions. The base case used the default separator performance I values (Vover=.5, Vunder=.15). Values of Vover ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 were input with default Vunder. Then Vunder was varied from the default value of 0.15 to 0.45, I while holding Vover at its 0.5 default value.

l 3.2.2 TSP Loss Coefficient in order to assess the appropriateness of the differential pressure modeling of the ,

upper support plate, the loss coefficient for the P TSP were varied plus and minus 10%. l This allows the determination of whether the pressure drop is due to two-phase effects, I or just the plate frictional losses by comparing the relative change in the differential pressures from the base case.

i l

6 of 29

PSA B 9517 Revision 0 3.2.3 Variation in Flow Limiting Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Performance The nozzle area is increased by 10% and 20% to determine the impact of variations in nozzle area. While the nozzle area is in fact well quantified, these cases provide an assessment of the effects of greater than expected break flow rates. While the uncertainty in critical flow rate is expected to be low, based on code assessment performance, this sensitivity is a good way to bound uncertainties in the overall code thermal hydraulic predictions. Only the high flow cases (area ratio >1) will be run, since reduced break flows will translate directly into reduced pressure drop at the TSPs.

3.2.4 Nodalization Sensitivity l As discussed in section 2.5, it is necessary to demonstrate that the small nodes used to obtain the differential pressures across the TSPs do not adversely affect the results l generated by the model. To verify this, a " clean" model, with no thin slabs in the tube regions was created. This model is shown in Figure 2. Liquid velocities at TSP F, M, and P were generated for comparison with the base model. Since the differential pressure is directly related to the square of the fluid velocity, this provides a good test of the effects of the thin slab nodalization.

3.2.5 Variation in Initial Water Level  !

l The base case is run at normal water level conditions. This case is run at the low water level condition, corresponding to the initiation setpoint of the auxiliary feedwater I system. This provides a lower bound value for the initial water level, although it is l recognized as a very unlikely point for any extended time while at HZP conditions.

3.2.6 Time Step Size l The base case is run with a selection of time steps to demonstrate that adequate i convergence exists in the final solution presented. l 1

I I

7 of 2r

PSA B 9517 Revision 0 3.2.3 Variation in Flow Limiting Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Performance The nozzle area is increased by 10% and 20% to determine the impact of variations in nozzle area. While the nozzle area is in fact well quantified, these cases provide an assessment of the effects of greater than expected break flow rates. While the uncertainty in critical flow rate is expected to be low, based on code assessment performance, this sensitivity is a good way to bound uncertainties in the overall code thermal hydraulic predictions. Only the high flow cases (area ratio >1) will be run, since reduced break flows will translate directly into reduced pressure drop at the TSPs.

3.2.4 Nodalization Sensitivity As discussed in section 2.5, it is necessary to demonstrate that the small nodes used to i obtain the differential pressures across the TSPs do not adversely affect the results generated by the model. To verify this, a " clean" model, with no thin slabs in the tube  !

regions was created. This model is shown in Figure 2. Liquid velocities at TSP F, M, i and P were generated for comparison with the base model. Since the differential l pressure is directly related to the square of the fluid velocity, this provides a good test l of the effects of the thin slab nodalization.

l 3.2.5 Variation in Initial Water Level The base case is run at normal water level conditions. This case is run at the low water level condition, corresponding to the initiation setpoint of the auxiliary feedwater system. This provides a lower bound value for the initial water level, although it is recognized as a very unlikely point for any extended time while at HZP conditions.

3.2.6 Time Step Size The base case is run with a selection of time steps to demonstrate that adequate convergence exists in the final solution presented.

7 of 29 l

PSA.B.95-17 Revision 0 Figure 2 Renodalization of Model without dp slabs

[ 107 l

[ 105-l 105-1 l l 124 >

l IU4 l 110 l_ 103 M g N

102 ]

l 111 135-3 -

135-2 135-1 112-1 134 t +

101-3 133-5 112-2 133-4 101-2 133-3 112-3 133-2 133-1 101-1 112-4 132 t t 121

• 131 s ,

7 100 <

RELAP5M3 Nodalization Sensitivity Model i

l 8 of 29 l

l

?

PSAcB 9517 Revision 0 l 4. Results 4.1 Base Case The base case was evaluated out to 4 seconds into the blowdown to ensure that the key load causing aspects of the MSLB were included. The base case resulted in a peak pressure of 1.916 psi across the P-TSP. The results of the base case are depicted in Figures 3 through 8. The dome pressure is shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the pressure drops rapidly initially and then moderates to rates of approximately 100 psi /sec or less within .2 seconds. Break mass flow rate is shown in Figure 4.

Break flow is initially all steam, with entrained liquid reaching the break at approximately 1.5 seconds, causing an increase in the mass flow rate. This is approximately twice as long as was seen in prior RELAP5M2 calculations, and is expected based on the code differences. Liquid void fraction in the volume adjacent to the inlet to TSP P is shown in Figure 5. The liquid void fraction remains relatively high throughout the peak dynamic load period, and review of the flow regimes predicted indicates bubbly flow persists until after the peak load occurs. The differential pressures across the P, N, and M TSPs are shown in Figure 6. This shows a peak occurs about 0.3 seconds followed by a rapid decay to near steady-state conditions.

liquid void fraction is shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 provides the differential pressures l predicted for the F, J and L TSPs, located in the middle of the tube bundle. The lower support plates A and C differential pressure response is shown in Figure 8.

4.2 Results of Sensitivity Cases 4.2.1 Separator Model Sensitivity The values of separator carryover and carryunder fractions were varied over a range of values to determine what impact the separator model has on the results. The values utilized and the corresponding results are displayed in Table 1. As can be seen, there is very little sensitivity to separator model inputs. This is most likely a result of early flooding of the seoarator, causing the separator model to shift to "same in/same out" behavior. The c rryunder fraction is most likely insensitive due to flow reversal effects.

l I

l l

! 9 of 29 l

PSA B 9517 Revision 0 i

Case Vover Vunder Max DP at P-TSP psi Percent .

Output Change File Base .5 .15 1.9161 0 wsens4 .75 .15 1.9148 .0678 wsens5 1.0 .15 1.9866 3.6793 l wsens6 .25 .15 1.9802 3.3453 wsens8 .5 .3 1.9161 0 l _wsens7 .5 .45 1.9161 0 Table 1 Results of Separator Parametric Sensitivity 4.2.2 Effects of TSP Loss Coefficient

! The loss coefficients for the P-TSP were varied by plus and minus 10%. The results i

are shown in Table 2. The results are as one would expect, with almost linear behavior of pressure drop with respect to loss coefficient.

Case RELAP Input K-Equivalent Max DP at P-TSP psi Percent Output at Bundle at Actual TSP change l File Flow Area Area l wsens9 12.5488 1.19 2.0877 8.9557 wsens10 10.2672 .972 1.7424 -9.0653 Base 11.408 1.08 1.9161 0 l Table 2 Sensitivity to TSP Loss Coefficient 4.2.3 Variation in Nozzle Area / Critical Flow Uncertainty l These cases were run to determine the effects of increased steam flow through the l

break. This is comparable to the Coefficient of Discharge sensitivities run on LOCA calculations, but in this case, the more deleterious effect occurs if the break flow increases. Therefore the areas of the nozzle and break were increased as shown below. As can be seen, the break flow has a dominant effect on the calculated result.

This is consistent with expectation, since the break flow area directly affects the vessel j depressurization rate, which provides the driving force for the initial fluid surge. It i should be noted that the flow restricting nozzle is well quantified and little uncertainty 1 exists in its geometry. In addition, the code assessment problems demonstrate that i RELAP5M3 characterizes the critical flow and depressurization rate of vessels very 10 of 29

PSAcBc9517 Revision 0 well. However, this sensitivity case provides a good way of defining margin for thermal hydraulic prediction uncertainties.

Case Output File Nozzle Area ft2 Max DP at P-TSP Percent Change

(% of actual) wsens1 1.5268 (110 %) 2.1688 13.1882 wsens2 1.6656 (120 %) 2.4083 25.6876 Base 1.388 (100%) 1.9161 0 Table 3 Effect of Nozzio Area / Critical Flow Uncertainty 4.2.4 Nodalization Sensitivity l

As noted in the previous section, this sensitivity is performed to assure that the use of l thin slab nodes to facilitate TSP differential pressure prediction are not adversely I

affecting the hydraulic solution. A renodalization of the base model, shown in Figure 2, was run. Junction fluid velocities at F, M, and P TSPs were extracted for direct comparison with the base model case, and are shown in Table 4 below. As noted ,

previously, the base model differential pressures conservatively include the elevation head. This is equivalent to about .06 psi (at the initial density of 45.5 lb/ft3), or about l 3.1% of the peak load. As can be seen, the maximum effect on TSP loads attributable l to the nodalization is comparable to the effects of including the density head into the

! computed load. Plots of the velocities at the three locations are provided in Figures 9, l 10, and 11. These graphically demonstrate that the inclusion of the thin slabs in the base model does not significantly compromise the solution accuracy. I l

Case Velocity at F TSP Velocity at M TSP at point Velocity at P TSP at point

Output at point of peak of peak dp m/sec of peak dp m/sec File dp m/sec wm3 nod .621 1.24 1.80 Base .612 1.22 1.79

% effect 2.96 3.305 1.12

_ on dp Table 4 Nodalization Sensitivity Study Results l

l 11 cf 29

PSA B-95-17 Revision 0 l 4.2.5 Variation in Initial Water Level Previous studies indicated that the initial water level could have a significant effect on the TSP loads. To evaluate this effect, the water level was reduced in the base model

, to the entrance of the separator riser. (Volumes 102,110, iii, and 250 had initial l quality set equal to 1.0) This initial water level corresponds to a level above the tube sheet of approximately 380 inches, versus the 487 inch level in the base case. This l

level is well below the low-low water level point (40.7%), just slightly below the safety analysis limit used in the plant transient analysis (23.7%) for loss of normal feedwater calculations. This represents a conservative lower bound for the initial water level, since the AFW system would initiate prior to this point to restore the level to the normal l range.

As expected, this case resulted in the most significant impact on the differential pressure loads at the TSPs. The results are shown below.

Case Initial Water Maximum dp at L TSP psi Maximum dp at P TSP psi Output Level File inches wsens3 380 1.7476 2.4375 Base 487 1.3540 1.9161

% effect 29 27.2 on dp Table 5 Effect of initial Water Level l 4.2.6 Effects of Time Step Size A series of cases were run to determine the sensitivity of the solution to the time step size. The time steps used and the effect on the peak dp at P TSP is shown in Table 6.

These results demonstrate good convergence of the solution, with the variation in time step size affecting the peak by only 1.1% for a factor of 10 in time step size. The l 0.0001 time step was applied to the base case and all sensitivity studies for the first l second of the transient to ensure consistent, conservative results.

l 1

1 12 of 29

1 PSA B 9517 Revision 0 l

I Case Time step Max DP at P-TSP psi Output size in first File second of event wsens11 0.001 1.8945 wsens12 0.0005 1.9055 wsens13 0.0001 1.9161 l

Table 6 Effect of Time Step Size i

4.3 Design Margin Since the RELAP5M3 computer code is considered to be a best estimate prediction tool, it is appropriate to consider additional factors to be applied to the loads generated to assure adequate design margin. Based on the sensitivity studies, a factor can be developed to assure that the structural design adequately bounds all anticipated loads.

It can be seen that none of the sensitivity effects is greater than 30%. The results of l the uncertainty calculation can be combined using square root sum of the squares l I

methods (SRSS) to establish a maximum probable load. Combining the results from the sensitivity studies in this manner gives a load factor of 1.4. This is a highly conservative value since it combines the unlikely low water level with a 20% larger nozzle area. This factor provides assurance that uncertainties in thermal hydraulic l prediction as well as anticipated ranges of plant conditions are bounded.

l l l l

13 of 29

. . . . . . _ . . - . . - . . .. . = . - . - - - - - - - _ . - - . _

2 PSA 2 9547 i Revision 0 1

4 Base Case Dome Pressure Response 4

' 1120 i

, 1100-l 1080 -

i

, 1000 -

108 -

l. l1020- l-p 10s0200001 L 1000-

! 080 -

i

. se0 4

u0 920 0.00E+00 5.00E 01 1.00E +00 1.50E +00 2.00E +00 2.50E +00 3.00E+00 time seconds I

l Figure 3 Base Case Dome Pressure Response I

i 1

1 3

1 i

i l

s 14 of 29

- . . _ . . _ . .m ._._.m. _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ - _ _ . _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ . .~.. _ _. . .

l 1

I PSA-& 9517 Revision 0 l 1 l Base Case Break Flow Response j

! l 6000 l

l t

j 4000 -

I A

l l 3000 i

I h l 2000 - l-mflow) tweak Fkul i

l 1000- 1 l

l 0

0.00 +00 5.00E41 1.00E +00 1.50E+00 2.00E+00 2.50E+00 3.00:+00 i

l -1000 umeseconds Figure 4 Base Case Break Flow Rate l l I

i I

15 of 29 i

I i

i PSA 2 95-17 Revision 0 Base Case Vold Fraction Response Liquid Void Fraction at P-TSP 1.20E+00 1.00E+00 -

8.00E41 -

6.00E41 - l- voidt 1360700]

4.00E41 -

2.00E41 -

0.00E +00 l 0.00E+00 5.00E41 1.00E +00 1.50E +00 2.00E +00 2.50E+00 3.00E+00 tirne seconds Figure 5 Base Case Liquid Void Fraction at P TSP 1 1

l l

16 of 29

l PSA B 9517 l Revision 0 I

( MSLB from HZP RELAP6M3 DP on M, N and P TSP 2.ooE+oo l

P l 1.soE+oo -

- - cedrivar 7 TSP M N * *cntrivar 8 TSP N cntrtver 9 TSP P M

l  % s.o0E o1 -

o.ooe.oo j l ,

o.m:+ $ s.ooe41 i.ooe+oo 5. soc +oo 2.ooe+oo 2.soe+oo a.m:+oo

-s.o0E41 -

1.ooE+o0 16tne seconds 1

1 r

Figure 6 Base Case Differential Pressure on P, N, M TSPs l

l l

l l

l.

i l

! l l

17 of 29 i l

l

_ _ - . . - -- _ -. - .- _ . .- - - . . ~ . . . - - - .. .-. . -

PSA-995-17 i Revision 0 l MSLB from HZP RELAP5M3 i

DP on F. J and L TSP )

! l 1.40E+00 j

l 1.20E+00 - L  ;

I l

1.00E+00 - cntrtvar 4 T3P F a entrtver 6 TSP J i l

• - entrivar 6 TSP L 1

l 8.00E41 -

3 1

's "6

, I .00E41 -

l 4.00E41 -

l l

l 2.00E41 - f j Z O _=f^ w m -- _ ____

O.00E+00 -

-l 0.00:> 5.00E41 1.00E +00 1.50E+00 2.00E+00 2.50E +00 3.00:+00 l

2.00E41 ' i time seconds '

i Figure 7 Base Case Differential Pressure at F, J, L TSPs i

l 1

l I

l l

I i

l t

18 of 29

__.._.___.__l l

i PSA B 95-17 Revision 0 MSBL from HZP RELAP5M3 DP on A and C TSP 2.50E41 l

2.00E41 -

l 8

1 .

k

1.50E41 - k3 '

l 1.00E41 - {

5.00E42 - ,

! 8g A.,fjyVY[

C - --

0.00:> I) 41 1.00E+00 1.50E +00 2.00E+00 2.50E +00 3.00:+00

-5.00E ill N

I r.. hrar 2 TSP A 1.C]E A a. . var 3 TSP C

\ l i

1.50E41 time seconds l

Figure 8 Base Case Differential Pressure at A, C TSPs I

i l

l 19 of 29

PSA B-95o17 Revision 0 Nodalization Sensitivity Fluid Velocity at TSP F 7.00E41 l

6.00E41 -

l 5.00E41 -

)

4.00E41 -

j 3.00E41 -

p verj full model TSP F j veNJ no elob TSP F

} 2.00E41 -

l 1.00E41 -

0.00E+00- , ,. . - ,1 ";. 'f .':"." . "

0.00 <' 5 IM41 1. .50E+ 2. 2.50E+00 3.00E+00 3.50:+00 1

-1.00E 01 -

2.00E-01 time seconds l

Figure 9 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at F TSP i l

i l

l l

l l

i l

i i

20 0f 29 l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _. . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ - .__._..m.__._ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . ._.

l PSA&9517 Revision 0 l

Nodalization SensitMty Study Fluid Velocity at M TSP l 1.40E +00 l

i 1.2CE+00 - ,

1.00E+00 -

l i 8.00E41 - j p 6.00E41 - vofj full model TSP M

- veW) no elab TSP M 4.00E.01 -

2.00E41 -

0.00E+00 h 0.00. 00 5.00E41 1.00E +00 1.50E +00 2.00E +00 2.50E +00 3.00E+00 3.50:+00

-2.00E41 time seconds Figure 10 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at TSP M l

l l

r 21 of 29 1

- -- . - __... -.. . . -. . - - - . _ . - . . _ _ _ ~ . _ . - . - _ _ _ . . .

PSA&95-17 Revision 0 Nodalization Sensitivity Study Fluid Velocity at P TSP 2.00E +00 1.80E+00 -

1.60E+00 -

1.40E+00 -

1.20E+00 -

l l 1 1.00E+00 -

g vef) full model TSP P

• * * 've10 no elab TSP P 6.00E41 -

4.00E 01 -

2.00E41 -

0.00E +00 1

0.00 f}00 5.00E 01 1.00E +00 1.50E+00 2.00E +00 2.50E+00 3.00E+00 3.50:+00 2.00G-01 time seconds l Figure 11 Nodalization Sensitivity Velocity at TSP P i

l l

f 22 of 29 r

l

PSA B 95-17 Revision 0

5. Conclusions / Discussion A detailed calculation of the time dependent differential pressure loadings on the tube support plates in a D4 steam generator under MSLB conditions from hot zero power has been completed. This calculation demonstrates that the loads are principally due to the initial fluid surge following initiation of the break. A series of sensitivity studies have been performed to demonstrate appropriate modeling methods have been applied, and to quantify an appropriate level of ma'r gin to be applied in subsequent structural analyses. The results calculated here compare favorably with loads calculated previously with other methods. Therefore, the loads, in combination with the design margin factor developed provide an adequate design basis for TSP l displacement analysis.

l r

l l

[

I l

i

?

23 of 29

l PSA B 95-17 Revision 0

6. References I

1) " Calculation of Byron D4 SG Tube Support Plate Differential Pressures during MSLB with RELAP5M2", PSA-B-95-11. K. Ramsden ., September 4,1995.

2) " Technical Support for Alternate Plugging Criteria with Tube Expansion at TSP l Intersections for Braidwood 1 and Byron 1 Model D4 Steam Generators",

WCAP-14273,1995.

3) " Additional Information Regarding the Increase in the Interim Plugging Criteria for Byron Unit 1 and Braidwood Unit 1" D. Saccomando to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated October 3,1995.

4) " Nuclear Systems I", N. Todreas and M. Kazimi,1990.

I l

l l

l l

24 of 29 l

l i

1 1

PSAcB 95-17 Revision 0 Appendix A - File index File name Description input Files Location /nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload l

westm3 hem Base model

! westm31wl Low water level model wm3 nodal Nodalization sensitivity model- no thin strips Output Files Location /nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload satdat3/srst3 base case output file / restart file wsensi nozzle area +10%

l wsens2 nozzle area +20%

wsens3 low water level output wsens4 separator sensitivity vover=.75 wsens5 separator sensitivity vover=1.0 wsens6 separator sensitivity vover=.25 wsens7 separator sensitivity vunder=.45 wsens8 separator sensitivity vunder=.30 wsens9 P TSP K=+10% '

i wsens10 P TSP K=-10%  !

wsens11 time step =.001s wsens12 time step =.0005 wsens13 time step =.0001 i wsennode nodal sensitivity l

l l

l 250f29

l

(

PSA B 9517 l Revision 0 l

l Data Files Location Infs/sa/nfskr/btspload dpdat

• tsp load file (tubesht, A, C) i dpdati

• tsp load file (F, J, L) i i dpdat2

• tsp load file (M,N,P) l dendat

• density data (tubesht, A, C) l dendati

• density data (F, J, L) dendat2

• density data (M,N,P) veldat velocity data for base case l veldati velocity data for renodalization

• = Data sets transmitted to Westinghouse on 9/30/95 via rftp connection 1

l l

l l

l l

26 of 29

PSA-B-95-17 Revision 0 Appendix B -Input Data Set Protection Form Station: #/8 Unit: / Cycle / Analysis:~# / J/ /da d C /u /. h ,

w --samoami Checksum #*

Current File Location CopygTo2 sum - sum -p r

1. /ntswat bFspioa/wesMs hen /hk/6sp loaes%es+M3h ew 088os auxas m ns /

2.

Notes: 1) Infs/sa is not required. Begin each file location with user id. File name should be desenptive and include a means of identifying associated computer code.

2) Station. Unit, and Cycle / Analysis wit: define part of the destination locaton in Infs.databank/SA therefore. these are not need in the " Copy To" column

3) The SA Admin will place a check mark next to the verifef checksum numbers.

t Author: d __ f Reviewer: ---,/// d min: ~

M bl Date: /,/a/ W

/' /

27 of 29

PSA B.95-17 Revision 0 i

l Appendix C - Checks of Frictional Losses and inertial Terms l

l l

l I I i

l l

i l

l 1

l l

l l

l l

l i

28of29

Sheeti Summary of Principal Path Nozzle to TSP Parameters for TRANFLO D4 Model Junction Segment Area Length K UA K/A2 Hyd dia calc hyd 231 il 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321221 01 12.83 12.83369 I 21 1.388i 1.5I Of 1.0806916431 01 0.5025 1.329423 1 31 51 0.51 01 0.11 01 2.45 2.52321 I i l i I I I j 241 11 74.941 3.72421 01 0.0496957571 01 11.021 9.76844 l 21 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321221 0l 12.831 12.83369 I i l i l I i j 251 il 179.541 0.371 401 0.0020608221 0.0012409021 0.04171 15.1199 l 21 63.491 3.7251 0.51 0.0586706571 0.0001240391 11.02) 8.99127 i l I l I I i j l 281 11 70.751 3.7251 0.51 0.0526501771 9.98889E-051 3.92 9.491429 l 2) 179.541 0.371 01 0.0020608221 01 0.0417 15.1199 I i l l I I I

29) il 152.67i 1.11461 Oi0.007300714i 01 14.04 13.94ri5 1 21 77.741 3.781 01 0.0486236171 01 4.07 9.94 d257

! I I I I I I I l 301 il 24.891 0.63541 1 0.0255283251 01 1.625 5.629643 I 21 11.491 0.251 0.861 0.021758051 0.006514161 1.1042 3.624973 1 31 152.671 1.11461 01 0.0073007141 01 14.04 13.94265 I I I i l l I 371 il 24.891 6.21481 01 0.2496906391 01 1.625 5.629643 1 21 22.011 0.251 13.91 0.0113584731 0.0286929181 1.072r, 5.293932  :

I 31 24.891 0.69791 01 0.0280393731 01 1.67.5 5.629643 I I I I I I I 381 il 92.131 3.593751 01 0.0390073811 01 10.82 10.83101 l l 21 24.891 6.21481 Oi 0.2496906391 01 1.625 5.629643 I I I I I I I I 391 21 16.99961 0.06251 1.081 0.0036765571 0.00373721 0.0417 4.652514 1 31 36.391 4.251 Oi 0.1167903271 01 0.1534 6.807057 1 I I I I I I l ,

! I l l l l l l Totals i j l i j 2.18205893110.0404091081 l l l 1 I I I I I 1

Page1

Sheet 2 Summary of Principal Path Nozzle to TSP Parameter for RELAP5M2 Model Volume Area Length K UA K/A2 hyd 107) l 1.380! 1.51 01 1.080692l 01 0.50251 I I I I I I I i 10511 1 63.491 7.4 51 Oi 0.1173411 01 11.02 l 1052i I 98.791 3.551 01 0.0359351 Ol 12.83 l l l I I I I i 1241 1 171.41 0.7081 01 0.0041311 01 0.0417 124-104 I I 70.751 1 0.51 i 9.99E-051 124-105 I l 63.491 1 5.5021 1 0.0013651 1 I I I I i l I l

1041 1 70.751 7.4 51 01 0.1053 j 01 l

l l l l 1 l l I 1031 1 151.321 2.35i 01 0.015531 01 14.04 j102-103 I i 11.491 GI 0.861 01 0.0065141 l

103-104 l l 77.741 i 01 1 01 1

! 1021 l 25.81211 14.15671 01 0.5484521 01 1.625 j135-102 I I 22.01i 01 13.9l 01 0.0286931 I I I I I I l l

1351 1 55.25! 8.15661 01 0.1476311 01 j135 tsp i I 55.251 01 11.4081 01 0.0037371 I I l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I i l l I i 1 i i l I

, I i i l l l l i j l l I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l 1 l l l 1 I I I I I I i i l I I i l I i i l i l l l l 1 i i l l I I I I I I I I I I I I i l l I I I l l I I i l I i i I I l l l l l l l Totals j j l l l 2.05501210.0404091 l l I I I I I i  !

Page 2

Sheet 3 Summary of Dryer Drain Path Parameters for TRANFLO D4 Model Junction Segment Area Length K UA K/A2 Hyd dia calc hyd 231 1 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321 01 12.83I 12.83369 1 2 1.3881 1.51 Oi 1.080692j 01 0.50251 1.329423 1 3 51 0.51 01 0.11 Oi 2.45i 2.52321 1 I I I I I I I 241 il 74.941 3.72421 01 0.0496961 01 11.021 9.76844 1 2l 129.351 1.77625I 01 0.0137321 01 12.83 12.83369 I I I I i i i 2 51 1I 179.541 0.371 40j 0.00206110.0012411 0.0417 15.1199 2 63.49 3.725 0.5 0.058671 0.000124 11.02 8.99127 26 1 20.36 3.7242 0 0.182917 0 0.6767 5.091635 2 2.0211 8.1925 0.5 4.053486 0.122404 1.6042 1.604214 J

27 1 2.0211 8.1925 0.5 4.053486 0.122404 1.6042 1.604214 2 126.49 3.9635 0 0.031334 0 4.51 12.69102 64/34 1 126.5 3.935 0 0.031107 0 4.51 12.69152 l 2 5.7356 15.8125 0 2.756904 0 0.3442 2.702451 l

l l 36/35 1 5.7356 15.8125 0.5 2.756904 0.015199 0.3442 2.702451 l 2 3.1184 1.1068 0 0.354926 0 0.1234 1.992665 i l

Totals 15.53965 0.261371 1

l I

l l

1 i

Page 3

l i

l Sheet 6 l

l Summary of Dryer Drain Path Parameters for RELAP5M2 Model Volume Area Length K UA K/A2 hyd 1071 1 1.3881 1.5 01 1.0806921 Oi 0.5025 i l l I I i 10511 l 63.491 7.4 51 01 0.1173411 01 11.02 1052l I 98.791 3.551 OI 0.035935I 01 12.83 I I I I I l i 1241 l 171.41 0.7081 01 0.0041311 01 0.0417 j 124-250 I I 2.02111 l 0.51 1 0.122404I 124-105 I I 63.49) i 5.5021 1 0.0013651 I l i l l l I 2501 1 2.02! 16.5408i Oi 8.1885151 01 1 I l l l l 1 1111 1 111.07 0.22021 Oi 0.0019831 01 0 l

J250-111 l i 2.02 01 0.51 01 0.1225371 3 l

111-112 l l 5.73561 i Oi 1 01 l l l i I I I i l 1'1211 1 5.74i 2.814292i Oi 0.4902951 01 0.3442 11221 1 5.741 1.0011 01 0.174391 01 0.3442 11231 1 5.741 6.5701341 01 1.1446231 01 0.3442 1124l 1 5.74l 10.384431 01 1.8091341 OI 0.3442 11251 1 5.741 10.384431 01 1.8091341 01 0.3442 l l l l i l l I I I I I I I 1001 1 56.45I 0.51 01 0.0088571 01 l 112-100 i I 5.73561 01 0.51 01 0.0151991 l l l I l 1 I I r l l l l I I I i i i I i l l l 1 I I I I I i l 1 I I I I l I l

i I I I I I I l I i i l I I i l i I i i l I I I I I i i i i I  ! I I I i l i l I l I i

j i I I i l I i l I l i I l l Totals i l i I i 14.86503j 0.261504i i l I j i I i Note: K for 112 does not include crossflow resistance term l

l Page 6 l _

l Shzet4 1 Summary of Deck plate drain Path Parameters for TRANFLO D4 Model l

Junction Segment Area Length K LJA K/A2 Hyd dia calc hyd I

231 il 129.351 1.77625i 01 0.0137321 01 12.83 12.83369 l 2i 1.3881 1.5 OI 1.0806921 01 0.5025 1.329423 ,

l 31 51 0.5 01 0.11 01 2.45 2.52321 l j l i I l l l 241 11 74.941 3.72421 01 0.0496961 01 11.02I 9.76844 l 21 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321 01 12.831 12.83369 I I i I I I I l l

251 11 179.541 0.371 401 0.002061i 0.0012411 0.0417 15.1199  !

2 63.49 3.725 0.5 0.058671 0.000124 11.02 8.99127

)

281 11 70.751 3.7251 0.51 0.052651 9.99E-051 3.92 9.491429 l l 21 179.54l 0.371 01 0.0020611 01 0.0417 15.1199 l

l l l l l l 1 l 291 11 152.671 1.11461 01 0.0073011 01 14.04 13.94265 l 2 77.74 3.78 0 0.048624 0 4.07 9.949257 I

621 11 152.671 1.1771 0 0.0077091 01 14.04 13.94265 1 21 7.291 0.0625l 1.71 0.0085731 0.0319881 0.1667 3.046717 1 31 104.071 2.91671 01 0.0280261 01 3.1026 11.51148 I I I I I I i 331 il 104.071 2.91671 Oi 0.028026l 01 3.1026 11.51148 l 21 27.911 0.06251 1.28i 0.0022391 0.0016431 0.8333'- 5.9614 3 126.49 3.9635 0 0.031334 0 4.51 12.69102 l

l 64/34 1 126.5 3.935 0 0.031107 0 4.51 12.69152 2 5.7356 15.8125 0 2.756904 0 0.3442 2.702451 36/35 1 5.7356 15.8125 0.5 2.756904 0.015199 0.3442 2.702451 2 3.1184 1.1068 0 0.354926 0 0.1234 1.992665 l

l Totals 7.434969 0.050295 l

l l

l l

l 1

Page 4

.- - =_- . ~- _. .- - . . - - - . - =

Sheet 7 Summary of Deck plate Drain Parameters for RELAP5M2 Model Volume Area Length K UA K/A2 hyd 1071 ^

1.3881 1.Si 01 1.0806921 Oi 0.5025 I l l I I i 1051j l 63.491 7.4 51 Oi 0.1173411 01 11.02 10521 l 98.791 3.551 01 0.0359351 01 12.83 I I I I i l l 1241 1 171.41 0.7081 01 0.0041311 01 0.0417 124-104 i I 70.751 1 0.51 1 9.99E 051 124-105 I I 63.491 1 5.502i i 0.0013651 i l i I I I i 1041 1 70.751 7.4 51 01 0.10531 01 i l l l l l l 1031 1 151.32 j 2.3 51 01 0.015531 Ol 14.04 J103-110 I i 11.491 7.291 1.771 0.6344651 0.013407!

! 103-104 l l 77.741 1 01 I Oi i i i I I I I i 1101 i 111.071 14.15671 Ol 0.1274571 01 0 l i I l l l l 1111 i 111.071 0.22021 01 0.0019831 Oi 0 J110-111 I I 111.071 01 01 01 01 i 111-112 I I 5.73561 1 01 1 01 I I I I I I I 11211 1 5.741 2.8142921 01 0.4902951 01 0.3442 11221 1 5.741 1.0011 01 0.174391 01 0.3442 l 11231 I 5.741 6.5701341 01 1.1446231 01 0.3442 11241 1 5.741 10.384431 01 1.8091341 Ol 0.3442  !

11251 1 5.74l 10.384431 01 1.8091341 01 0.3442

( l I i i l l I I I I I I I i 1001 1 56.451 0.51 01 0.0088571 01 112-100 l I 5.73561 Oj 0.51 01 0.0151991 I I I i i l I I I I I I I I I i i l l I I I I I I I I I l

I I I I I I I I I I I l i I I I I I I I I l l l 1 1 I i i l I I i l I i l i l I j l Totals l I I l l 7.559267j 0.0300711 I I I I I I I Page 7 l

l

i Shett5 l l

l Summary of Separator drain Path Parameters for TRANFLO D4 Model i

Junction Segment Area Length I K UA K/A2 Hyd dia cale hyd 231 il 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321 01 12.83) 12.83369 I 21 1.3881 1.51 01 1.0806921 01 0.5025 1.329423 I 31 51 0.51 01 0.11 01 2.45 2.52321 I I I I I I I i l 241 il 74.941 3.72421 01 0.04s6961 01 11.02 j 9.76844 l 21 129.351 1.776251 01 0.0137321 01 12.83l 12.83369 I I I I I I i 1 25l 11 179.541 0.371 401 0.0020611 0.0012411 0.04171 15.1199 2l 63.49 l 3.725! 0.5 0.058671 0.000124 11.02 8.99127 i l l 2 81 11 70.75I 3.7251 0.5l 0.052651 9.99E-051 3.92 9.491429 I 21 179.541 0.371 01 0.0020611 01 0.0417 15.1199 I I I I I I I 291 11 152.671 1.1146l 01 0.0073011 01 14.04 13.94265 2 77.74 3.78 0 0.048624 0 4.07 9.949257 30l il 24.891 0.63541 1 0.0255281 Ol 1.625 5.629643 l 1 21 11.491 0.2 51 0.861 0.0217581 0.0065141 1.1042l 3.824973 l l 31 152.671 1.11461 01 0.0073011 01 14.041 13.94265 l l 1 I I I I i j 311 1! 24.89i 0.69791 1 0.0280391 01 1.625i 5.629643 1 2l 19.781 2.91671 0.51 0.1474571 0.0012781 0.5417i 5.018588 I I I I I I i 321 11 19.781 2.91671 0.51 0.1474571 0.0012781 0.5417 5.018588 l l 21 104.071 2.91671 01 0.0280261 01 3.1026 11.51148 l

l l l 1 I I l 331 11 104.071 2.91671 Oi 0.0280261 01 3.1026 11.51148 l 21 27.911 0.06251 1.281 0.0022391 0.0016431 0.8333 5.9614 3 126.49 3.9635 0 0.031334 0 4.51 12.69102 l 64/34 1 126.5 3.935 0 0.031107 0 4.51 12.69152 2 5.7356 15.8125 0 2.756904 0 0.3442 2.702451 l

36/35 1 5.7356 15.8125 0.5 2.756904 0.015199 0.3442 2.702451 2 3.1184 1.1068 0 0.354926 0 0.1234 1.992665 l

l Totals 7.796226 0.027377 Page5 l

Shnet8 Summary of Separator Drain path Parameter for RELAPSM2 Model Volume Area Length K UA K/A2 hyd 1071 1 1.3881 1.51 01 1.0806921 01 0.5025 I I I I I I i 10511 1 63.491 7.451 01 0.1173411 01 11.02 10521 l 98.79i 3.551 Oi 0.035935j Oi 12.83 I I I l l l l 1241 1 171.41 0.7081 Oi 0.0041311 01 0.0417 124-104 I I 70.751 1 0.5j i 9.99E-051 124-105 I l 63.49) I 5.502i I 0.0013651 1 I I i i l i 1041 1 70.751 7.451 01 0.10531 Oi I I l i i I i 1031 1 151.321 2.3 51 01 0.015531 01 14.04 j102-103 l l 11.491 01 0.861 01 0.0065141 I 103-104 l l 77.741 1 01 1 01 1021 1 25.81211 14.15671 01 0.5484521 01 1.625 j111-102 I i 19.781 01 11 01 0.0025561 I I I I I i l i 1111 1 111.071 0.22021 01 0.0019831 01 0 )

J110-111 l l 111.071 01 01 01 01 l 111-112 I I 5.73561 1 01 1 01 i I i i l l I I 1 11211 1 5.74i 2.8142921 Oi 0.490295j 01 0.3442 11221 i 5.741 1.0011 01 0.174391 01 0.3442 11231 1 5.741 6.5701341 01 1.1446231 Oi 0.3442 11241 1 5.741 10.384431 01 1.8091341 01 0.3442 11251 I 5.74 j 10.384431 Di 1.8091341 01 0.3442 I I I I I I i l I i l l I i 1001 1 56.451 0.51 01 0.0088571 Of 112-100 l l 5.73561 01 0.5l 01 0.0151991 I I I I I l l i I I I i l i I l l l 1 I I I I I i  ! I I I I  ;

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l l Totals j i l l l 7.34579710.0257341 l I I i i I I Page 8

I Sheet 9 Summary of Principal Path through tube sheets for TRANFLO D4 Model l l

Junction Segment Area Length K L/A l K/A2 Hyd dia calc hyd 46l 11 28.225l 0.251 01 0.0088573961 01 0.1234 5.994947 i l 21 6.44881 0.06251 1.251 0.0096917261 0.0300674541 0.0093 2.865549 l 31 27.91 1.218751 01 0.0436827961 01 0.1234 5.960332 I

)

l i l l I I l 4 51 11 27.91 1.218751 01 0.0436827961 Ol 0.1234l 5.960332 I I 21 8.04851 0.06251 1.1i 0.0077654221 0.0169809811 0.04171 3.201296  ;

I 31 27.91 1.468751 01 0.0526433691 01 0.1234 5.960332  !

I i I i l l I l 441 il 27.91 1.468751 01 0.0526433691 01 0.1234 5.960332 l i 2j 8.04851 0.06251 1.11 0.007765422i 0.0169809811 0.0417 3.201296

{

l 31 27.91 1.468751 01 0.0526433691 01 0.1234 5.960332 l l I I i l I 431 il 27.9i 1.46875l 0 0.0526433691 01 0.1234 5.960332 l 21 7.87171 0.06251 1.13 0.0079398351 0.0182364951 0.0417 3.16594 I i 3I _

27.91 1.76041 01 0.0630967741 01 0.1234 5.960332

, I i i I i I i l 421 il 27.91 1.76041 01 0.0630967741 01 0.1234 5.960332 l

l 21 7.03981 0.06251 1.21 0.0088780931 0.0242136691 0.0417 2.993978 I 31 28.251 1.76041 01 0.0623150441 01 0.1234 5.997601 I I l l 1 I I 411 11 56.451 1.76041 01, 0.031185121 01 0.1234 8.478135 l i 21 16.91491 0.06251 1.081 0.0036949671 0.0037747211 0.0417 4.640909 I 31 56.451 1.76041 01 0.031185121 01 0.1234 8.478135 l l l l l l l l 401 il 56.451 1.76041 01 0.031185121 01 0.1234 8.478135 l I 21 16.99961 0.06251 1.081 0.0036765571 0.00373721 0.0417 4.652514 l l 31 56.451 1.76041 01 0.031185121 01 0.1234 8.478135 I i i l i l I j 391 11 56.451 1.76041 Ol 0.031185121 01 0.1234l 8.478135 l l 21 16.99961 0.06251 1.081 0.0036765571 0.00373721 0.0417i 4.652514 l l 3i 36.391 4.251 01 0.116790327; 01 0.1234 6.807057 I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I l l l l l l

! Totals I j i i 10.821109561i 0.117718703j j l l l l l l l l 1 l

Page 9

Shret10 -

1 Summary of Tube Sheet Path Parameters for RELAP5M3 Model Volume Area Length K L/A K/A2 hyd 1001 1 56.451 0.51 01 0.008857i 01 0.1234 I I I i i i l J 100-121 1 27.91 01 23.391 01 0.0300481 0 l I I I j l l I i I i l l 1211 1 27.91 0.41 01 0.0143371 O! 0.1234 121 122 I i 27.91 I I I 01 1 I i i l l i 1221 l 27.91 1.8371 1 0.065842I l 0.1234 I i l l 1 1 I J123 I I 27.9i 1 01 1 0l I I I I I I i 10111 1 27.91 0.21 01 0.0071681 OI 0.1234 10121 1 27.9) 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 10131 1 27.91 2.61 01 0.093191 01 0.1234 j 10141 1 27.91 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 1 10151 1 27.91 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 l 10161 l 27.91 2.61 01 0.093191 01 0.1234 10171 1 27.91 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 10181 1 27.91 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 10191 1 27.91 3.1833i 01 0.1140971 01 0.1234 101101 27.9I 0.21 01 0.0071681 01 0.1234 l1~ l 27.9 0 13.2181 0 0.0169816 0.1234 j4 I I 27.91 Ol 13.2181 Oi 0.0169811 0.1234 j7 I I 27.91 01 14.21 01 0.0182421 0.1234' I I l l l l l 1341 1 56.451 0.21 01 0.0035431 01 0.1234 j101-134 I I 27.91 01 18.851 01 0.0242161 134-135 i I 55.251 1 01 I OI I I i l i l I 13511 1 56.451 3.12l 01 0.055271 01 0.1234 13521 1 56.451 0.21 0I 0.0035431 01 0.1234 13531 1 56.451 0.21 Oi 0.0035431 01 0.1234 13541 1 56.461 3.18331 Ol 0.0563821 01 0.1234 13551 1 56.451 0.21 01 0.0035431 01 0.1234 13561 1 56.451 0.21 01 0.003543I 01 0.1234 13571 1 56.451 2.97331 01 0.0526711 01 0.1234 13581 1 56.451 0.211 01 0.003721 01 0.1234 13591 1 55.251 0.211 01 0.0038011 01 0.1234 135101 1 55.251 8.15661 01 0.1476311 01 0.1234 I I I I I I I l l 1 i l l l j2 I i 56.45 j 01 11.9091 01 0.0037371 0.1234 j5 I i 56.451 01 11.9091 01 0.0037371 0.1234

.; j8 I I 55.25 j 01 11.408! 01 0.003737l 0.1234 j Totals i I l l l 0.7768821 0.117681 1 1 I i  ! I I Page 10 l - - --

. - _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . - _ _ . ~ , - , - . - - - - . . . _ - . _ . - . _ . - . . _ . _ _ . -

l C11culation of Crossflow R:sistence Term Tha crossflow r:sistancs of tha tube bundis nreds to be accounted for, particularly at tha U-bend l portion of the tubes. This will be hant. led by calculating a K value to be added to the separator inlet loss coefficient, usir:g a correlaton by Zukauskas obtained from p390 of " Nuclear Systems l' i Kazimi/Todreas. The values for crossflow length and area are taken from the TRANFLO output I previously provided, g := 32.2 p := 45.5 Density of fluid l

1. l p := 19.710 g viscosity of sat liq at 1000 psi l l

D := 1234 hydraulic dia from TRANFLO INPUT ' 1 G := Mass flux from TRANFLO Output at .57 sec 36.39 S m.0885 S = 1.416 Tube lattice aspect pitch over dia

_5 \.7_

f 12 3 l

Re := G- s Reynolds number needed to obtain f Re = 5.88 lo l

l f := 0.24 f-factor from figure Z := 1 square lattice, no Z correction N ._ 4.25 number of rows of tubes, estimate by crossflowJunction length / pitch j .0885 l

NG2 DP := Z DP at estimated flow l 2t l44 g l DP = 2.4%

At a flow of 11000 lb/see the expected dp is about 2.5 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 2.84 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the separator inlet.

A sep := 22.01 1

2 DP A 3,p .144 g 2 p 4 W2 K = 4.216 This is added to the losses associated with the junction between 102 and 135-5.

Similarly for the entranca to tha tube bundis g := 32.2 p := 45.5 p := 19.7 10-7g D := .1234

. l G := '

1.559 6

Re := G E Re = 3.244 10 p

i S := ' S = 1.416 f .75 '

1 1 1

! t 12j f = 0.24 Z := 1 g ,1.107

.0885 G2 DP = Z '

2 pl44 g DP = 19.788 At a flow of 2600 lb/see the expected dp is about 19,7 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 18 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the downcomer inlet.

Ain := 5.7356 W := 2600 DP Ain 144 g 2 p W2 K = 40.633 This is being added to the junction between the downcomer and the entrance regions to the tube region 112-5 to 100.

_ _ _ . _ _ . - - ._ ___ _____. _ ._m___. .. . . - . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .

i l

l Simil:rly for connsctor 52 t

g := 32.2 j p := 45.5 p :: 19.710'7g 1

l l D ::.1234 l

! l 0

G:=

4.2478 i 5

Re := G E Re = 3.801 10 E

l S := *0885 S = 1.416 l .75 12 i

f : = 0.24 N :: 4.0729

.0885 Z :: 1 2

DP := f N-G 2

(

2 pl44 g i DP = 0.999 l At a flow of 830 lb/see the expected dp is about 1 psi. This compares with the TRANFLO generated dp of 1.038 at .57 seconds. Now need to convert this dp into a K value to be added to the preheaterJunctions.

t l

Ain := 4.2478 W :=830 i

! DP A in 144 g 2 p K :=

a W

K = 11.045 This value will be used for connector 56 as well as connector 54/58 due to similarity.In the RELAP model these junctions are in volume 133 and the entrance to 133.

i 1 PSAC 95-17 R: vision 0 Appendix D Base Model Listing l l l .

l l

l l

l 29 of 29

Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/ua/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 1

-stand alone steam generator model for d4 sg

• hot standby equilibrium models used/inel l

j

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • guidance ******* used on tsp models l *this deck is based on westinghouse tranflow d4

• l l

• model used for tube support plate dp calculation

• l

• this model contains more detail in dome area  !

j ***************************************************

l l this data is contained in *

• nfskr.relap5.westm3 hem

• l includes two more small nodes at all tsps

• i

• models upper dome with explicit w volumes *

• includes .2 ft slabs for tsp dp calc j

• includes crossflow resistances

• 100 new transnt l

102 british british 105

• • • • • • • • • • • t***********************************

• ------- time step cards

• end dtmin dtmax opt min maj rstrt 201 1.0 1.d-7 0.0001 3 5 4000 2500 202 2.0 1.d-7 0.0005 3 2 4000 2500 203 10.5 1.d-7 0.001 3 5 4000 2500 l

• --------- minor edit variables 1

• variable code parameter location 301 cntrlvar 2 *a 302 cntrlvar 3 *c i 303 cntrlvar 4 *f I 304 cntrlvar 5 *j 305 cntrlvar 6* 1 306 ntrlvar 7*m 307 cntrlvar 8 *n 308 cntrivar 9 *p l ********************************************

l *----------- trip input data

!

• variable trip cards l

• variable param relation variable param cons latch

! 501 time 0 ge null 0 1. 1 l 502 time 0 ge null 0 .01 1 l I 503 time 0 ge null 0 100. 1

• mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmma t

• l l

1 I

l l

l l

l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 2

• trip identifier i

• 1

• 501 => problem stop i

• trip stop advancement card i

• trp no. '

600 501 l *----------- hydrodynamic components I *

• primary side model i

• plenums and tubes modelled explicitly i

• hot leg and cold leg represented by tdvst a___________________________________________

l l

• ============n================

l 0420000 inplen tmdpvol 1 I

l *

• flowa 1 vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 0420101 0.0 5.2183 147.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000 l 0420101 0.0 5.2183 5000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000

• ebt l

l 0420200 3 l l

• time press temp l l l 0420201 0.0 2250.00 557.000 l 0420202 1.0e6 2250.00 557.000

• musummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0470000 outplen tmdpvol

• flowa 1 vol azi inc1 dz rough hyd pvbfe l 0470101 0.0 5.2183 147.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000  !

l 0470101 0.0 5.2183 5000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000 f

• ebt 0470200 3

• time press temp

, 0470201 0.0 2206.77 557.

0470202 1.0e6 2206.77 557.

• m============================

1510000 tubes pipe l

• nv 1510001 21 l

o flowa av 1510101 11.0088 21 o

l 0 length nv l

1510301 .5625 1 1510302 2.5 2 1510303 3.0 3 Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 3 1510304 3.5833 8 1510305 3.445 10 1510306 3.5833 14 1510307 1.5 19 1510308 1.0 20 1510309 .5625 21 o

l 0 volume nv l 1510401 0.0 21

! o o incline angle nv 1510601 90.0 8 1510602 90.0 9 1510603 -90.0 10

! 1510604 -90.0 21 l 0 o elev cng nv 0510701 1.7525 1

! 0510702 2.5 2 l 0510703 3.0 3 l 0510704 3.5833 8 0510705 3.445 9 0510706 -3.445 10 0510707 -3.5833 14 i 0510708 -1.5 19 0510709 -1.0 20 0510710 .5625 21 o

o rough hyd dia nv 1

1510801 0.0 .0553333 21 o

o pvbfe nv 1511001 00000 21 .

o o fvcahs nj 1511101 001000 9 1511102 001000 10 1511103 001000 20 i o o flag p t dummy dummy dummy nv 1511201 3 2250.0 557.0 0.0 0. O. 21 1*0 l flag =1 => (lbm/sec)

I

l l

1511300 1 l

• Iflow vflow interface flow nj

! 1511301 9763.12 0.0 0.0 20

• m===================================================

1500000 junct tmdpjun

• from to area 1500101 042000000 151000000 1.0

• flag 1500200 1 Oct 11 1.6:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 4

• time lflow vflow intflow 1500201 0.0 9763.12 0.0 0.0 1500202 1.0e6 9763.12 0.0 0.0

• m===================================================

1590000 junct sngljun

• from to area fjunf fjunr fvcahs 1590101 151010000 047000000 9.823515 0.0 0.0 021000

• flag lflow vflow intflow 1590201 1 9763.12 0.0 0.0

• ====================================================

l

• l e __________________________________________

• secondary side model i 90% - 10% feed flow split i bound ends represented by time dependent!

• junctions and tme dependent volumes i

• mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm=mmmmmmmm=ammmmmmmmmmm= mumm ==

9020000 mnfeed tmdpvol

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe i

9020101 0.0 31.1533 147.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000 l 9020101 0.0 31.1533 5000. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000 l *

• ebt l

l 9020200 003 1

• time press l temp {

! 9020201 0.0 1200.0 435.0 i 9020202 1.0e6 1200.0 435.0 I l

• mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm==================== l i

l

3020000 fljun tmdpjun

• from to ajun 3020101 902000000 132000000 1.0

• flag 3020200 1 i

• time lflow vflow int flow 3020201 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 l

3020202 1.0e6 0. 0.0 0.0

• ====================================================

1000000 riser branch

• nj flag 1000001 3 1

• flowa flowl vol azi inc1 dz rough hyd pvbfe 1000101 56.45 0.0 28.22 0.0 90. .4999 .00015 .1234 00101 l

Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 5 l

l l

• flag p x l l 1000200 2 1119.15 0.00 l 1000200 1 557.0 0.00 l

• from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs

! 1001101 112010000 100000000 5.7356 .50 .50 000000 l

• add crossflow resistance l 1001101 112010000 100000000 5.7356 41.1 41.1 000000 l 1002101 100010000 121000000 6.4488 1.25 1.25 010000 l l 1003101 100010000 131000000 6.1798 1.28 1.28 010000 1002101 100010000 121000000 27.9 23.39 23.39 010000 1003101 100010000 131000000 28.225 26.7 26.7 010000

{

• Iflow vflow int flow l 1001201 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 1002201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1003201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• ccf1/ junction hyd diam info

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj l 1001110 .1234 0. 1. 1. -

• use hyd of 112 for junc 1 since reverse flow dominates 1001110 .3442 0. 1. 1.

1002110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

. 1003110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

i 1220000 slab snglvol 1

• 1

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1220101 27.9 1.837 0.0 0.0 90. 1.837 0.00015 0.1234 00101

• flag p x

l 1220200 001 557. O.

• • • • • • w*** s 1230000 conn sngljun i

• from to l area fjunf fjunr fvcahs 1230101 122010000 101000000 27.9 0.0 0.0 010000

• flag lflow vflow int flow 1230201 1 0.0 0.0 0.0

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1230110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

1210000 riser 1 branch

• nj flag 1210001 2 1 l

'

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1210101 27.9 0.0 68.01 0.0 90. 2.437 .00015 .1234 00101 1210101 27.9 2.237 0.0 0.0 90. 2.237 .00015 .1234 00101 1210101 27.9 .4 0.0 0.0 90. .4 .00015 .1234 00101 1 *

• flag p x 1210200 2 1118.67 0.00 l 1 1

l I

l l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 6 1210200 1 557.0 0.00

• from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs 1212101 121010000 101000000 8.0485 1.1 1.1 010000 1212101 121010000 101000000 27.9 13.218 13.218 010000 1212101 121010000 122000000 27.9 0.0 0.0 010000 1211101 131000000 121000000 2.7297 .38 0.34 010000

• Iflow vflow int flow 1211201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1212201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info l

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj l 1211110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

1212110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

1310000 riser 2 branch

• nj flag 1310001 0 1

• flows flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1310101 28.225 0.0 26.46 0.0 90. 0.937 .00015 0.1234 00101

• flag p x

. _ _ . . . --- -. - _ _ = _ - - -_ _ _ .

1310200 2 1118.67 0.00 1310200 1 557.00 0.00 o

o from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs o

o lflow vflow int flow l occfl/ junction hyd diam info

! o hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj c1311110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

om============================

1320000 riser 3 branch o

l o nj flag 1320001 2 1 o

o flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe

! 1320101 27.9 0.0 40.11 0.0 90. 1.437 .00015 0.1234 00101

! o j o flag p x l 1320200 2 1118.67 0.00 1320200 1 557.00 0.00 l 0 from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs l

1321101 132000000 131010000 0.7975 1.80 1,80 010000 1322101 132010000 133000000 4.42 6.18 6.18 010000 j 1322101 132010000 133000000 26.3462 219.6 219.6 01000 0 lflow vflow int flow l

l 1321201 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 1322201 0.0 0.0 0.0 o ccfl/ junction hyd diam info l

, l l

l l

l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 7 l

t i

o hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1321110 .00175 O. 1. 1.

1322110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

l om============================

l o m============================

1340000 uprsr branch o

! o nj flag 1340001 3 1 O

o flowa flowl vol azi inc1 dz rough hyd pvbfe 1340101 56.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 90. 3.52 .00015 0.1234 00101  !

, 1340101 56.45 0.2 0.0 0.0 90. .2 .00015 0.1234 00101 i o  !

o flag p x 1340200 2 1114.68 0.00 1340200 1 557.00 0.00 o

o from to ajun fjun fjunr 'fvcahs i

. . - . . . - -. - . . . . - - - - . . . ~ , _ - - - - . . - - -

1 1341101 101010000 134000000 7.0398 1.20 1.20 010000 1342101 133010000 134000000 7.0398 1.2 1.2 010000 1343101 134010000 135000000 16.9149 1.08 1.08 010000 1341101 101010000 134000000 27.9 18.85 18.85 010000 '

l 1342101 133010000 134000000 27.9 18.85 18.85 010000 l 1343101 134010000 135000000 55.25 11.408 11.408 010000 j l 1343101 134010000 135000000 55.25 0. 0.0 010000 l i

o lflow vflow int flow l

l 1341201 0.0 0.0 0.0 j l 1342201 0.0 0.0 0.0 '

! 1343201 0.0 0.0 0.0 l o ccfl/ junction hyd diam info o hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj l 1341110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

I 1342110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

! 1343110 .1234 0. 1. 1.

o......=.........=...........=

! 1010000 boil 2-5 pipe l l o j o nv i 1010001 10

! o o flowa nv

! 1010101 27.9 10

! o o jarea nj l 1010201 8.0485 1 1010202 7.8717 2 1010201 27.9 1 I 1010202 27.9 9 l

l o 0 length nv 1010301 3.0 2 1010302 3,5833 3 1010301 .2 2 l

l l

) Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 8 1 1010302 2.6 3 1010303 .2 5 1010304 2.6 6 1010305 .2 8 1010306 3.1833 9 1010307 .2 10 4

0 o volume nv 1010401 0.0 10 o

o incline angle nv

(

f 1010601 90.0 10 o

l

• elev cng nv  ;

• 1010701 3.0 2 l

• 1010702 3.5833 3

• rough hyd dia nv l

1010801 .00015 0.1234 10

'

• 1 I

!

• fjunf fjunr nj l l

1010901 13.218 13.218 1

! 1010902 0. O. 3 l 1010903 13.218 13.218 4 l l 1010904 0. O. -6 l 1010905 14.2 14.2 7 1010906 0. O. 9 i *

• pvbfe nv 1011001 00101 10

• fvcahs nj 1011101 000000 9

• flag p x dummy dummy dummy nv l 1011201 2 1117.80 .0 0. O. O. 1 I i 1011202 2 1116.85 .0 0. O. O. 2 1011203 2 l l 1115.81 .0 0. O. O. 3 l 1011201 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 1 1011202 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 2

, 1011203 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 10  !

• 1 i

• flag =0 => (lbm/sec) 1011300 1

• Iflow vflow interface flow nj 1011301 0.0 0.0 0.0 9

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info i

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1011401 .1234 0. 1. 1. 9

• ====================================================

• =============================

l 1330000 prheat pipe l

l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 9

• nv 1330001 5

• flowa nv 1330101 26.3462 3 1330101 27.9 5

• jarea nj 1330201 4.2478 1 1 1330202 4.2478 2 1330203 4.2478 3 1 1330204 7.0398 4 1330204 27.9 4 l

• add bypass area to flow path l l *1330201 4.9938 1 ,

• 1330202 4.9938 2 l

• 1330203 4.9938 3 i

• 1330204 7.0398 4

• length nv 1330301 1.5 4 1330302 3.5833 5 1330302 3.6463 5

• volume nv 1330401 0.0 5

• incline angle nv l 1330601 90.0 5 l

• elev cng nv l l l 1330701 1.5 4

1330702 3.5833 5 l 1330702 3.6463 5 l

• rough hyd dia nv l 1330801 .00015 0.1234 5 l *

• fjunf fjunr nj 1330901 9,16 9.16 1 1330902 5.92 5.92 2 1330903 5.48 5.48 3 1330904 1.2 1.2 4

• add crossflow resistance of 11 to first 3 junctions 1330901 20.16 20.16 1

! 1330902 16.92 16.92 2 l 1330903 16.48 16.48 3 l 1330904 18.85 18.85 4 l *

• pvbfe nv l 1331001 00101 5 l *

• fvcahs nj l

l 1331101 000000 4 i

l

• flag p x dummy dummy dummy nv l

Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 10 1331201 2 1118.04 .0 0. O. O. 1

1331202 2 1117.56 .0 0. O. O. 2 1331203 2 1117.09 .0 0. O. O. 3 l 1331204 2 1116.62 .0 0. O. O. 4 t 1331205 2 1115.81 .0 0. O. O. 5 1331201 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 1 1331202 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 2 1331203 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 3 1331204 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 4 1331205 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 5 l

• flag =0 => (lbm/sec) 1331300 1

• Iflow vflow interface flow nj l

1331301 0.0 0.0 0.0 4

• ccf1/ junction hyd diam info

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj

! 1331401 .1234 0. 1. 1. 4

! *m===================================================

l 1350000 upriser pipe i l

• i

( nv

1350001 10

• flowa nv l

l 1350101 56.45 8 l 1350102 55.25 10

• jarea nj i

1350201 16.9996 1 1350201 56.45 7 1350202 55.25 9

• 1350202 55.25 2

• 1350203 16.9996 3 l *1350204 55.25 4 t

• 1 *

• length nv l

l 1350301 3.12 1 i 1350302 .2 2 1350303 .2 3 1350304 3.1833 4 1350305 .2 6 l 1350306 2.9733 7 1350307 .21 9-

• 1350302 2.9733 2

+1350303 .31 4 1350308 8.1566 10

• volume nv 1350401 0.0 10

• incline angle nv 1350601 90.0 10

i l

, Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Pcge 11 l

• elev cng nv

• 1350701 3.5833 2

• 1350702 8.1666 3

• rough hyd dia nv 1350801 .00015 0.1234 10

• fjunf fjunr nj 1350901 0.0 0.0 1 1350902 11.408 11.408 2 1350902 11.909 11.909 2 1350903 .0 .0 4 1350904 11.408 11.408 5 1350904 11.909 11.909 5 1350905 .0 .0 7 1350906 11.408 11.408 8 1350907 .0 .0 9

• test sensitivity of loss coeff at P TSP

• 1350906 12.5488 12.5488 8 *10% high l

• 1350906 10.2672 10.2672 8 *10% low

• pvbfe nv 1351001 00101 10

• fvcahs nj 1351101 000000 1 1351102 000000 2  !

1351103 000000 3 l 1351104 000000 9 l

• flag p x dummy dummy dummy nv 1351201 2 1113.55 .0 0. O. O. 1 1351202 2 1112.42 .0 0. O. O. 2 1351203 2 1110.59 .0 0. O. O. 3 1351203 2 1110.59 1.0 0. O. O. 3 1351201 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 1 1351202 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 2 1351203 1 557.00 .0 0. O. O. 10

• 1351203 1 557.00 1.0 0. O. O. 3

• flag =0 => (lbm/sec) 1351300 1

• Iflow vflow interface flow nj 1351301 0.0 0.0 0.0 9

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope' nj 1351401 .1234 0. 1. 1. 9

, *====================================================

! 1020000 sep separatr

• nj flag 1020001 3 1

0 flowa l flowl vol azi incl da rough hyd pvbfe l

I l

l I

l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 12 l 1020101 0.0 14.1567 365.4148 0.0 90. 14.1567 .00015 1.625 00010 l o o p flag uf ug vg 1020200 2 1107.31 .227 1020200 2 1107.31 1.0 1020200 1 557.00 1.0 01020200 1 557.00 .3494 1020200 1 557.00 .03 01020200 1 557.00 .015 o

o from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs vflim 1021101 102010000 103000000 22.01 13.9 13.90 000000 1022101 102000000 111000000 19.78 0.5 0.5 000000 1023101 135010000 102000000 24.8873 0.5 1.0 000000 o rearrange losses 1021101 102010000 103000000 11.49 0.86 0.86 000000 l 1022101 102000000 111000000 19.78 1.0 1.0 000000 1023101 135010000 102000000 22.01 13.9 13.9 000000 cadd crossflow resistance term 1023101 135010000 102000000 22.01 18.12 18.12 000000 o sensitivity values of vover/vunder 01021101 102010000 103000000 11.49 0.86 0.86 000000 0.5 01022101 102000000 111000000 19.78 1.0 1.0 000000 .45 o

o lflow vflow int flow l

1021201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1022201 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 1023201 0.0 0.0 0.0 o ccfl/ junction hyd diam info l 0 hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj l 01021110 1.625 0. 1. 1.

• ==================================================== l l

1030000 dome branch o

o nj flag 1030001 2 1 o

o flowa l flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1030101 123.051 5. 0.0 0.0 90. 5. .00015 1.625 00000 l 1030101 123.051 5. 0.0 0.0 90. 5. .00015 0.0 00000 l 1030101 151.32 0. 356.23 0.0 90, 2.35415 .00015 14.04 01000 i

o o flag p uf ug vg 1030200 2 1107.31 1.0 1030200 1 557.00 1.0 o

o from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs vflim 1031101 103000000 110010000 7.29 1.77 1.77 010000 1032101 103010000 104000000 77.74 0. O. '010000

• 2033101 103000000 110010000 19.78 0.5 0.5 010000 t *

• Iflow vflow int flow 1031201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1032201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• 1033201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 13

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1031110 3.05 0. 1. 1.

1032110 4.07 0. 1. 1.

• ====================================================

1040000 udc snglvol I

• flowa l flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1 1040101 70.75 0.0 527.08 0.0 0. 0.0 0.00015 4.07 01000

• l l

• flag p x i 1040200 001 557. 1.0

• ====================================================

1 1

2500000 dryerdrn snglvol

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 2500101 2.02 16.5108 0.0 0.0 -90. -16.5108 0.00015 0.0 00000 1

• flag p x l

2500200 001 557. .025  ;

1240000 dryer branch

• nj flag 1240001 3 1 l

flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe l 1240101 171.4 0. 121.41 0.0 00. 0.0 .00015 .0417 01000

• flag p uf ug vg 1240200 1 557.00 1.0 '

• from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs vflim 1241101 104010000 124000000 70.75 .5 .5 030000 1242101 124010000 105000000 63.49 5.502 5.502 030000 1243101 250000000 124000000 2.0211 0.5 0.5 010000 l

• Iflow vflow int flow 1241201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1242201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1243201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1241110 .0417 0. 1. 1.

1242110 11.02 0. 1. 1.

1243110 1.604 0. 1. 1.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • )

1050000 dome pipe

• nv 1050001 2

• flowa nv 1050101 63.49 1 1050102 98.79 2

• jarea nj l

l l

Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 14 1050201 74.94 1 l

• length nv l 1050301 0. 2

• volume nv i

1050401 473.0 1 1050402 350.7 2

• incline angle nv 1050601 00.0 1 1050602 90.0 2

• rough hyd dia nv 1050801 .00015 11.02 1 1050802 .00015 12.83 2

• fjunf fjunr nj 1050901 .0 .00 1

• pvbfe nv 1051001 00000 2 l

• test effect of vertical stratification in dome l 1051001 01000 2

• fvcahs nj

, 1051101 000000 1

• flag p x dummy dummy dummy nv 1051201 1 557.00 1.0 0. O. O. 2

• flag =0 => (lbm/sec) 1051300 1

• Iflow vflow interface flow nj l

l

1051301 0.0 0.0 0.0 1

' *ccfl/ junction hyd diam info

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1051401 12.83 0. 1. 1. 1

• mm=ame=me==mmm=mn===================================

1

• mmumammmm=mmmmmmm=namm=mummm=ummmmmmmusum=mmmmmm=mus (

l

• • • • • • • • • • I l 1060000 nozzle sngljun

• from to area fjunf fjunr fvcahs 1060101 105010000 107000000 1.388 0.0 0.0 010100 l

• 1060101 105010000 107000000 1.5268 0.0 0.0 010100

• 10% increase

• 1060101 105010000 107000000 1.6656 0.0 0.0 010100

• 20% increase

• flag lflow vflow int flow 1060201 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1070000 nozzle snglvol ,

l l

l l

l Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 15 i

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1070101 1.388 1.5 0.0 0.0 90. 1.5 .00015 0.5025 00000 i

• change flow area of flow limiter to check effects of choked flow increase

• 1070101 1.5268 1.5 0.0 0.0 90. 1.5 .00015 0.5025 00000 *10%

• 1070101 1.6656 1.5 0.0 0.0 90. 1.5 .00015 0.5025 00000 *20%

• flag p x 1070200 002 1106. 1.0 1070200 001 557. 1.0

• mummun==mummmmm..mm.====ame=.mma.mmmmm.== mum.me=amma i

3000000 break valve

• l

• from to ajun 3000101 107010000 900000000 1.388 0.0 0.0 00100  ;

• increase in flow limiter size for brk flow I

• 3000101 107010000 900000000 1.5268 0.0 0.0 00100 *10%

• 3000101 107010000 900000000 1.6656 0.0 0.0 00100 *20%

• time lflow vflow intflow 3000201 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3000300 mtrylv 3000301 502 503 1000, 0.0

• 3000301 502 503 2.0 0.0

• mmmmmmmmmmm===mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm=ummmmmmmm===mmma 9000000 break tmdpvol i

• flowa flowl l vol azi incl dz rough hyd fe 1

9000101 0.0 31.1533 147.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 9000101 5.0 0.0 9999. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00

1

• ebt 9000200 002 j

l

• time press x 9000201 0.0 14.7 1.0 9000202 1.0e6 14.7 1.0

• ====================================================

1110000 udc1 branch i

• nj flag 1110001 3 1 l

• l

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe 1110101 111.07 13.7C 0.0 0.0 -90. -13.76 0.00015 0.0 00000 1110101 111.07 .2192 0.0 0.0 -90. .2192 0.00015 0.0 00000 1110101 111.07 .2202 0.0 0.0 -90. .2202 0.00015 0.0 00000

• f]ag p x ,

1110200 2 1107.0 0.0 j i 1110200 1 557.0 1.0 l 1110200 1 557.0 0.0 l

• from to ajun fjun fjunr fvcahs 1111101 111010000 112000000 5.7356 1.15 1.28 000000 1111101 111010000 112000000 5.7356 0.0 0.00 000000 f

l Oct 11 16:13 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 16 l 1112101 111000000 110000000 5.7356 0.0 0.0 000000 1112101 111000000 110000000 111.07 0.0 0.0 000000 1113101 250010000 111000000 2.02 0.5 0.5 000000

• Iflow vflow int flow 1111201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1112201 0.0 0.0 0.0 1113201 0.0 0.0 0.0

• ccfl/ junction hyd diam info l

• hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj

~

l 1 12 11 89 b. 5. 5.

1113110 1.604 0. 1. 1.

====n====================================

• ====================================================

1100000 udc snglvol

• flowa flowl vol azi incl dz rough hyd pvbfe i 1100101 111.07 13.5408 0.0 0.0 90. 13.5408 0.0 0.0 00000 1100101 111.07 14.1567 0.0 0.0 90. 14.1567 0.0 0.0 00000

• flag p x 1100200 002 1106. 0.22 1100200 001 557. 1.0

l

! *1100200 001 557. 0.3494 1100200 001 557. 0.03 l *1100200 001 557. 0.015 t

• -=======--== .....========= --========---===========

1120000 ldc1-3 pipe

• nv 1120001 5 I

• flowa nv 1120101 6.99203 5 1120101 5.74 5

• length nv

! 1120301 2.814292 1 1120302 1.0 2 l 1120302 1.001 2 1120303 6.570134 3 l 1120304 10.384433 5

• volume nv l 1120401 0.0 5

• incline angle nv 1120601 -90.0 5 l

• elev cng nv j 1120701 -2.814292 1 1120702 -1.0 2 1120703 -6.570134 3

1120704 -10.384433 5 l

l I

l i

Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 17 V

l *

• rough hyd dia i

nv 1120801 0.0 .4067 5 1120801 0.00015 .3442 5 l

• pvbfe nv t

1121001 00001 5 l

l

• fvcahs nj 1121101 000000 4

-

• flag p x dummy dummy dummy nv 1121201 1 557.00 1.0 0. O. O. 2 1121202 1 557.00 .629 0. O. O. 3 1121202 1 557.00 .07 0. O. O. 3 1121203 1 557.00 0.0 0. O. O. 5 1121201 1 557.00 0.0 0. O. O. 2 1121202 1 557.00 0.0 0. O. O. 3 1121203 1 557.00 0.0 0. O. O. 5

O

• flag =0 => (lbm/sec) 1121300 1 l o o lflow vflow interface flow nj 1121301 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 o

o ccfl/ junction hyd diam info o hyddia floodcorr gasint slope nj 1121401 .3442 0. 1. 1. 4 0000c*****************************************************************

+---------- heat structure input o

ogeneral data o nh np geo ss left coord.

11511000 21 11 2 1 0.02766665 o========================================

omesh flags o location flg format flag 11511100 0 2 o========================================

omesh data o mesh interval int #

11511101 .000358335 10 o========================================

ocomposition data o comp. # int #

11511201 1 10 o========================================

oheat distribution data o source int #

11511301 0.0 10 o========================================

oinitial temperature data  !

o temp. int #

11511401 557.0 11 I o============================================================

l I

l 1

1 1

i Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 18 l oleft be cards o byl inc type surf cyl ht struct #

! 11511501 151010000 0000 1 0 447.65 1 .

11511502 151020000 0000 1 0 1989.54 2 11511503 151030000 10000 1 0 2387.45 4 11511504 151050000 10000 1 0 2851.67 8 11511505 151090000 10000 1 0 2741.59 10 11511506 151110000 10000 1 0 2851.67 14 11511507 151150000 10000 1 0 1193.72 19 11511508 151200000 0000 1 0 795.82 20 11511509 151210000 0000 1 0 447.65 21 o============================================================

oright be cards

l o bvr inc type 1

surf cyl ht struct #

11511601 100010000 0 1 0  !

505.62 1 '

11511602 122010000 0000 1 0 2247.22 2  !

11511603 101030000 0000 1 0 2696.66 3 11511604 101060000 0000 1 0 2696.66 4 11511605 101090000 0000 1 0 3221.02 5 11511606 135010000 0000 1 0 3221.02 6 1 11511607 135040000 0000 1 0 3221.02 7 l l 11511608 135070000 0000 1 0 3221.02 8 l 11511609 135100000 0000 1 0 3096.67 10 11511610 135070000 0000 1 0 3221.02 11 11511611 135040000 0000 1 0 3221.02 12 l

11511612 135010000 0000 1 0 3221.02- 13 3 11511613 133050000 0000 1 0 3221.02 14 l 11511614 133040000 -10000 1 0 1348.33 18 -

l 11511615 132010000 0000 1 0 1348.33 19

' 11511616 131010000 0 1 0 898.89 20 11511617 100010000 0 1 0 505.62 21 o============================================================ l t

osource data o source mult ldh rdh struct #

! 11511701 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 I l o============================================================ ,

oleft boundary cards i o hdiam hlf hlr gridf gridr grdissf grdissr lbf struct # .

11511801 0. 10.0 10.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1. 21 )

o============================================================ '

o right boundary cards o hdiam hlf hlr gridf gridr grdissf grdlssr lbf struct #

11511901 0. 10.0 10.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 1. 21 ocooo********************************************************

l o----- heat structure thermal property data l

o '

o composition type and data format o material type flag flag 20100100 tbl/fctn 1 1

• inconel o=====================================================

o o

o___________________________________________________________________

o thermal conductivity data (btu /sec-ft/deg f) and volumetric heat i I o capacity data (btu /ft**3-deg f) versus temperature for above i

! o composition i Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 19 o __________________________________________________________________

o

i l I

, o=====================================================  ;

l oinconel 600 thermal conductivity data 1 i o temperature thermal conductivity i

i I

t

l 20100101 70.0 2.3843e-03 20100102 200.0 2.5232e-03 20100103 400.0 2.8009e-03

! 20100104- 600.0 3.0787e-03 20100105 800.0 3.3565e-03

20100106 1000.0 3.6574e-03 i 20100107 1200.0 3.9815e-03 l 20100108 1400.0 4.3056e-03 20100109 1600.0 4.6296e-03

• --=.............============ ..===..==..== ...... = .

• inconel 600 volumetric heat capacity data

• temperature heat capacity 20100151 70.0 55.6831 20100152 200.0 55.5227  ;

l 20100153 400.0 55.2607 1 20100154 600.0 54.9895 20100155 800.0 54.7069 20100156 1000.0 54.3982 '

20100157 1200.0 54.0907 20100158 1400.0 53.7516 20100159 1600.0 53.4205 20100160 1800.0 53.0796

• ..............== ............==== .....=======.--====

• --------- control system for measuring sg level note: the following control system is to work in britsh i

• units ( lbm, lbf, ft, s, p=lbf/sgin), in relaps i the quantities stored in arrays are in si units. i

• therefore, conversions from si to british units I must be made. i l

• --------- control variable card type 20500000 999

• --------- control component cards

• compute pressure difference

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag i 20500100 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1 l a0 al var vol a2 var vol 20500101 0.0 1.0, p, 042010000 -1.0, p, 100010000 Oct 11 16:15 1995 rrunner:/nfs/sa/nfskr/btspload/westm3 hem Page 20

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag

. - . . _ . - . - . . . . . , - - _ , . . - . . . . . - . - - - . - - - _ . - - . - . ~ . . . . . _ - - . . -

I 20500200 deltpn sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol 20500201 0.0 -1.0, p, 121010000 1.0, p, 100010000 l *

!* name type scale (psi /pa) init flag 20500300 deltpn sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

'

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol i

20500301 0.0 -1.0, p, 101020000 1.0, p, 101010000

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag j 20500400 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1 t

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol

20500401 0.0 -1.0, p, 101050000 1.0, p, 101040000 i *

• name l type scale (psi /pa) init flag l

20500500 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol 20500501 0.0 -1.0, p, 101080000 1.0, p, 101070000

!* name type scale (psi /pa) init flag l 20500600 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol 20500601 0.0 -1.0, p, 134010000 1.0, p, 101100000 name type scale (psi /pa) init flag i

20500700 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1 l

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol 20500701 0.0 -1.0, p, 135030000 1.0, p, 135020000

• l l

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag 20500800 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol i

20500801 0.0 -1.0, p, 135060000 1.0, p, 135050000

• name type scale (psi /pa) init flag 20500900 deltpp sum 1.45003e-04 0.0 1

.

• a0 al var vol a2 var vol l20500901 0.0 -1.0, p, 135090000 135080000 i ***************************************,*p, 1.0

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • }

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w*************************

end of input deck - problem end *

• • • At******************************************

-- --- .